231–233 of 233 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then any source patch would fall outside of licensing. It's clearly a derivative work, as described.
Some source patches include significant elements of what they apply to. Some don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You cannot have GPL-licensed code in closed-source code. It's a violation of the license so the code ceases to be GPL-licensed and becomes unlicensed. If you distribute that code, in source or binary form, you can get sued by the copyright holders which is what this case is about.
You can if it is dual-licensed.
If I copy GPL-licensed code without following the license terms, the GPL no longer applies and the code becomes unlicensed. The GPL is explicit about that.
If I acquire code under another license than the GPL my copy is not GPL-licensed even if it's available under the GPL license. Ultimately, the GPL requires that all people who pass on code under the GPL adhere to its terms. If one person in the chain didn't (for example by not making available the source) all subsequent copies become unlicensed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You cannot have GPL-licensed code in closed-source code. It's a violation of the license so the code ceases to be GPL-licensed and becomes unlicensed. If you distribute that code, in source or binary form, you can get sued by the copyright holders which is what this case is about.
You can totally have GPL-licensed code in closed-source code as long as you don't publish it. So you can totally run your SaaS business like that. The Affero GPL tries to close that loophole.