GPL and Copying Code

GPL and Copying Code

[David Botton]

Let's say that I like a particular package with some algorithm and its is
under the GPL or GMGPL, would I be able to copy that piece of code from that
package in to a new package (along with other new code and perhaps even
modifying the original code) under the same lic, but different package name?

What about just renaming it to fit with in a nice naming scheme of some
package?

Of course putting a notice of where the code came from and it's (c) holder.

David Botton

Re: GPL and Copying Code

[Florian Weimer]

"David Botton" <David@Botton.com> writes:

> Let's say that I like a particular package with some algorithm and its is
> under the GPL or GMGPL, would I be able to copy that piece of code from that
> package in to a new package (along with other new code and perhaps even
> modifying the original code) under the same lic, but different package name?

As long as you do not misrepresent the author of the source code, I
don't think this is a problem.  In some way, it happens all the time.

Nevertheless, it's polite to ask first.  Some people might be a bit
annoyed when they receive bug reports for packages they think they
have never written. ;-)

Re: GPL and Copying Code

[Robert Dewar]

"David Botton" <David@Botton.com> wrote in message news:<tt17ea9bml9sf6@corp.supernews.com>...
> Let's say that I like a particular package with some algorithm and its is
> under the GPL or GMGPL, would I be able to copy that piece of code from that
> package in to a new package (along with other new code and perhaps even
> modifying the original code) under the same lic, but different package name?


You are creating a derived work in this situation, in which
both you and the original author have copyright interests.
It is a good idea for the copyright statement in the file
to indicate this dual copyright interest (though not strictly legally
required).

If you distribute the derived work, then you must do this
in accordance with the licensing conditions, which in this
case specifically allow you to distribute the derived work
(the GPL is all about allowing you to distribute such derived works,
that's its whole point). If someone copies
the derived work without a proper license (e.g. they 
distribute a further modified work without the sources),
then the copyright of both you and the original author have
been violated, and you have appropriate legal action that
you can take.

(that's why it's nice to put a notice in the file, but the
notice in the file is never enough for a third party to be
sure of the licensing, for example, if someone steals the
Microsoft Power Point code, and removes all trace of Microsoft, and
puts a GPL notice on the front of every file, then some third party
that comes along and copies or modifies the resulting file will be
violating the Microsoft
copyright regardless of what the file header says. As always, if you
copy something, it is up to you to take the
responsibility to ensure that you are not violating any
copyright).