Continuing discussion on Copyright, Chaos-Esque Anthology: A

File: xontemp20160428055816-00.jpg (493KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

493KB, 1600x900px

Refrences: https://archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/thread/S56453058

>>56458386
>By the way, that shitty music is under GPL (because CC is for sane people) so give us the sources or admit that you also suck at copyright law on top of it all you autistic fucker.

How the GPL and Copyright law works:

Y releases work under GPL.
X makes derivative work.
Derivative work can only be created if X abides by the GPL, otherwise X is violating Y's copyright. (same for distribution)
X distributes derivative work.
Z requests source.

X refuses Z's request.
X is violating Y's copyright.

-----

Y releases original work under GPL.
Z demands source from Y.
Y ignores Z.

Who's copyright is Y violating?

-----------------------

>>56458589
> That's not the point, you can't claim your work is under the GPLv2 if you only release a binary. That's not how it works.
> You haven't released the work to anyone so you can't claimed it's licensed under anything.

> My personal notes aren't GPL'd and BSD'd just because I don't share them with anyone you fucking idiot.

Please inform me against whom you have a claim in the x-y hypothetical (2nd hypothetical).

When I release a work of original authorship under terms, it is not I who must obey the terms as the licensor; the terms are aimed at you the licensee. This is not a contractual relationship: it is a bare license.

Furthermore any recovery would be under copyright: even if there was some "violation" you cannot recover against me for me "violating" my copyrights.

Thus, when I release a binary audio file, though you must provide source if you create a derivative work, I do not have to provide anything as your complaint will be dismissed due to failure to state a claim under-which recovery can be granted.