Carlo Wood carlo at
Sat Jul 21 16:40:20 UTC 2001

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 11:44:17AM -0400, Randy Kramer wrote:
> However I have a concern that this creates a loophole -- not a legal
> loophole, an illegal loophole (AFAIK), but a loophole nevertheless. 
> Let's say I create such a derivative work, and I don't GPL it.  But I
> leave it somewhere (accidentally, with no malice aforethought) where
> somebody else finds it, with no copyright or GPL notice.  Now they take
> it and use it as is or create a derivative work, and distribute it as a
> closed source program.
> What is the status in a case like that?

In that case the (last) derived work is indeed NOT GPL-ed.  But it falls
under the normal copyright laws.  Any of the previous authors can execute
their copyright and demand the closed source to be taken from the market.

Or the person that used the copy that had no license can license it using
the GPL: the original authors can not stop that.

Carlo Wood <carlo at>

PS  IANAL either, but it's pretty logical how this works imho.
PS2 Me thinks we need to start to cut into the CC list.

More information about the License-discuss mailing list