That's not how asset sales work. The new copyright owner wouldn't be liable for the previous copyright owner's actions. And if the new copyright owner isn't distributing binaries that include the GPL code they haven't violated the GPL.
> That's not how asset sales work. The new copyright owner wouldn't be liable for the previous copyright owner's actions. And if the new copyright owner isn't distributing binaries that include the GPL code they haven't violated the GPL.
Interesting, so even if the new copyright holder profited off of the asset, they wouldn't have to comply with the GPL? This is an interesting parallel to real estate, where the last person holding the bag has to perform environmental cleanup, etc.
"Someone" owns the rights.
They too bought the burden of copyright violation.
That's not how asset sales work. The new copyright owner wouldn't be liable for the previous copyright owner's actions. And if the new copyright owner isn't distributing binaries that include the GPL code they haven't violated the GPL.
> That's not how asset sales work. The new copyright owner wouldn't be liable for the previous copyright owner's actions. And if the new copyright owner isn't distributing binaries that include the GPL code they haven't violated the GPL.
Interesting, so even if the new copyright holder profited off of the asset, they wouldn't have to comply with the GPL? This is an interesting parallel to real estate, where the last person holding the bag has to perform environmental cleanup, etc.
7 replies →
Assets do sometimes just go nowhere.
Especially when they're heavily encumbered assets, e.g. when they're part of a licensed game whose license expired long ago. (Like this one!)
1 reply →
I would bet money against this being true.