The GPL (and Linux?) in court

B Gruff · External Since: Jun 17, 2004 Posts: 1639

Not a clue what it all really means.

Is it a bit like the Duke of Wellington's "full report of the Peninsular
Campaign", which in total read "We won"? (Black Adder)

http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.html

ed · External Since: Nov 20, 2006 Posts: 877

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:21:00 +0100
B Gruff <bbgruff.TakeThisOut@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> User-Agent: KNode/0.9.0
>
> Not a clue what it all really means.
>
> Is it a bit like the Duke of Wellington's "full report of the
> Peninsular Campaign", which in total read "We won"? (Black Adder)
>
> http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.html

I saw this on digg just now. They (dlink) obviously make more money
paying the GPL when they make a product and don't comply with the rules
of the GPL... I don't know if that's a good thing or not, the GPL don't
go for damages.

--
Regards, Ed :: http://www.linuxwarez.co.uk
proud linux person
When Chunk Norris has nausea, heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach,
or diarrhea, he drinks arsenic because pink liquids are for pussies.

Rex Ballard · External Since: Feb 22, 2006 Posts: 947

ed wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:21:00 +0100
> B Gruff <bbgruff RemoveThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Is it a bit like the Duke of Wellington's "full report of the
> > Peninsular Campaign", which in total read "We won"? (Black Adder)
> >
> > http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.html
>
> I saw this on digg just now. They (dlink) obviously make more money
> paying the GPL when they make a product and don't comply with the rules
> of the GPL... I don't know if that's a good thing or not, the GPL don't
> go for damages.

The important thing is that it establishes the GPL as legally binding.
It's quite possible that D-Link may have put up this defense, knowing
that the court would rule the way it did. But this made it possible to
affirm the validity of the GPL. The GPL has also been affirmed many
other countries that permit the use of Licenses to govern the "fair
use" of copyrighted work.

My guess is that D-Link will do the same as Linksys did. If you want
the source code to the GPL and LGPL portions of the kernel and
libraries, you can download it from their site. This doesn't mean you
get the web interface and some of the special code they use to get
better performance, but it at least lets you see what's in the game

NetGear also publishes the source code to their Linux implementation,
and also includes some LGPL code which helps developers understand
their hardware and interfaces. As a result, contributors have been
able to create Linux routers that also function as storage controllers.
Netgear has created new markets from GPL based code. They are also
quite willing to comply with the requirements of the licensed code.

Others like Belkin also provide source code and have gotten
contributions back which have led to new markets.

This may have been a "Non-defense defense". Specifically, D-Link
wanted the court to rule specifically on this specific issue, and knew
full well that the court wouldn't overturn existing copyright law.

Back in the early 1980s, Microsoft and Apple both staged similar
"Non-defense defense" lawsuits to establish the validity of
shrink-wrapped licenses, "click to accept" licenses, and even the use
of dissassembled entry points (franklin).

In the late 1970s, microcomputers (as they were called in those days),
and software for them, were completely unregulated. If your computer
trashed your neighbor's television set (thank goodness for Cable), it
was their problem, so long as you didn't put an antenna on it. If
your computer used chips or PC board masks that were similar to a
competitor's, it wasn't that big a deal.

In 1976, copyright law was changed, largely to protect the interests of
young Bill Gates, and other fledgeling software companies. Bill's
mother was an effective lobbyist, and she had lots of friends in high
places.

In those days, programs were often distributed on punched paper tape.
The punch was a bit expensive, but usually came with surplus army
teletype machines. The loader on the other hand, could be made using
simple paper clips or photodiodes and LEDs. The programs could easily
be copied, and many people did just that. Programs for the PDP-8 or
PDP-11 could be created, saved to paper-tape, and then saved again. It
wasn't uncommon in those early days to have someone load up a copy of
Wang BASIC by hand entering hex codes, then save it to punched paper
tape, sometimes 10-20 times. These could be passed around in computer
clubs.

When Bill Gates got up at the first national Microcomputer Conference,
he tiraded against the assembly, calling them a bunch of pirates and
thieves. He warned them that if he couldn't make money selling his
knock-off of DEC BASIC, then NOBODY would make money off of software.

Well, here we are, 30 years later. Bill has made $Billions, and has a
net worth of around $25 Billion. But there aren't that many other
billionaires who got their $billions selling microcomputer software.
In fact, I would venture to guess that not ONE of the people in that
assembly ever became a $Billionaire.

A lot of software companies did spring up. But Microsoft killed off
most of them.
Some still exist, as divisions of other companies.

Lotus
Boreland
WordPerfect
WordPro
DataLaw
Milliken
Corel
Stack
DesqView
Visicalc
SCO
DBase
Tandy Computers
Commodore
Atari
Sinclair
North Star
KayPro
ALR
AST
Micron Computers
Sanyo Computers
Digital Research
ButtonWare
Novell (coming back mostly due to Linux)

B Gruff · External Since: Jun 17, 2004 Posts: 1639

On Saturday 23 September 2006 11:21 B Gruff wrote:

> Not a clue what it all really means.
>
> Is it a bit like the Duke of Wellington's "full report of the Peninsular
> Campaign", which in total read "We won"? (Black Adder)
>
> http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.html

OOPS - sorry - ignore that - just found post and follow ups on it!

Roy Schestowitz · External Since: Jun 26, 2005 Posts: 24202

__/ [ B Gruff ] on Saturday 23 September 2006 11:23 \__

> On Saturday 23 September 2006 11:21 B Gruff wrote:
>
>> Not a clue what it all really means.
>>
>> Is it a bit like the Duke of Wellington's "full report of the Peninsular
>> Campaign", which in total read "We won"? (Black Adder)
>>
>> http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.html
>
> OOPS - sorry - ignore that - just found post and follow ups on it!

FWIW, here's some related background.

German GPL defender claims legal victory

,----[ Quote ]
| Open-source programmer Harald Welte said Thursday he won a civil court
| case in Germany centered on the General Public License (GPL). The license
| governs many open-source projects and permits anyone to use software
| covered by it, but requires that companies incorporating GPL software
| make the underlying source code available.
`----

http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-6113453.html?part=rss&tag=6113453&subj=news

Erik Funkenbusch · External Since: May 27, 2005 Posts: 2362

On 23 Sep 2006 07:36:35 -0700, Rex Ballard wrote:

> The important thing is that it establishes the GPL as legally binding.

It does no such thing.

I challenge you, or anyone else to point to any words of the actual
judgement that says anything like that. Nothing I've seen so far has
indicated that the GPL was tested. What the court DID say was that in this
case, it wouldn't matter if the GPL were valid or not, the defendant would
still be enjoined from distribution either way.

ed · External Since: Nov 20, 2006 Posts: 877

On 23 Sep 2006 07:36:35 -0700
"Rex Ballard" <rex.ballard RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:

> When Bill Gates got up at the first national Microcomputer Conference,
> he tiraded against the assembly, calling them a bunch of pirates and
> thieves. He warned them that if he couldn't make money selling his
> knock-off of DEC BASIC, then NOBODY would make money off of software.

He also made a letter which exists in the archives that was sent to many
computer clubs. http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/gateswhine.html

> A lot of software companies did spring up. But Microsoft killed off
> most of them.
> Some still exist, as divisions of other companies.
>
> Lotus
> Boreland

Borland/Inprise.

> WordPerfect

Now part of Corel

> WordPro
> DataLaw
> Milliken
> Corel
> Stack
> DesqView
> Visicalc
> SCO
> DBase
> Tandy Computers
> Commodore
> Atari
> Sinclair
> North Star
> KayPro
> ALR
> AST
> Micron Computers
> Sanyo Computers
> Digital Research
> ButtonWare
> Novell (coming back mostly due to Linux)

What about Sun?

--
Regards, Ed :: http://s5h.net/u?l
just another unix hacker
Vin Diesel can cut 2" thick steel piping using only his rectum and
Beatrice Arthur.

ed · External Since: Nov 20, 2006 Posts: 877

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 20:38:57 +0200
Hadron Quark <qadronhuark.RemoveThis@geemail.com> wrote:

> ed <ed.RemoveThis@noreply.com> writes:
>
> > On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:21:00 +0100
> > B Gruff <bbgruff.RemoveThis@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> User-Agent: KNode/0.9.0
> >>
> >> Not a clue what it all really means.
> >>
> >> Is it a bit like the Duke of Wellington's "full report of the
> >> Peninsular Campaign", which in total read "We won"? (Black Adder)
> >>
> >>
> >http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.ht
> >ml
> >
> > I saw this on digg just now. They (dlink) obviously make more money
> > paying the GPL when they make a product and don't comply with the
> > rules of the GPL... I don't know if that's a good thing or not, the
> > GPL don't go for damages.
>
> Hilarious : a company uses LINUX and what happens : end up in court
> over some ridiculously minor infringement.

If they don't understand the GPL that's their problem. However, if
they'd used a proprietary OS without understanding the licence they'd be
in more trouble, that I'm sure of. And it's not A company, if you'd RTFA
you'd see there's been over 100 companies.

--
Regards, Ed :: http://www.usenix.org.uk
just another c++ hacker
Tornados are not caused by sudden changes in weather, but rather, a
sudden roundhouse by Chuck Norris.

Hadron Quark · External Since: Sep 10, 2006 Posts: 1621

ed <ed DeleteThis @noreply.com> writes:

> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:21:00 +0100
> B Gruff <bbgruff DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> User-Agent: KNode/0.9.0
>>
>> Not a clue what it all really means.
>>
>> Is it a bit like the Duke of Wellington's "full report of the
>> Peninsular Campaign", which in total read "We won"? (Black Adder)
>>
>> http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.html
>
> I saw this on digg just now. They (dlink) obviously make more money
> paying the GPL when they make a product and don't comply with the rules
> of the GPL... I don't know if that's a good thing or not, the GPL don't
> go for damages.

Hilarious : a company uses LINUX and what happens : end up in court over
some ridiculously minor infringement.

--
QOTD:
"What would the world be like without men? A lot of fat,
happy women."

Peter Kai Jensen · External Since: Oct 23, 2006 Posts: 202

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hadron Quark wrote:

>> I saw this on digg just now. They (dlink) obviously make more money
>> paying the GPL when they make a product and don't comply with the
>> rules of the GPL... I don't know if that's a good thing or not, the
>> GPL don't go for damages.
>
> Hilarious : a company uses LINUX and what happens : end up in court
> over some ridiculously minor infringement.

You consider copyright infringement for profit to be a ridiculously
minor infringement?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFFYajd1ZThqotgfgRAk1FAKCGC6OJjnGMJCUg3rXW1l3In0NniwCeMEea
ztAnhZrX+HL+95Ekod6jn24=
=bqCE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe

Q: God, root, what's the difference?
A: God can change the byte order on the CPU, root cannot.

Mark Kent · External Since: Feb 09, 2005 Posts: 5545

begin oe_protect.scr
ed <ed DeleteThis @noreply.com> espoused:
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 20:38:57 +0200
> Hadron Quark <qadronhuark DeleteThis @geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> ed <ed DeleteThis @noreply.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:21:00 +0100
>> > B Gruff <bbgruff DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> User-Agent: KNode/0.9.0
>> >>
>> >> Not a clue what it all really means.
>> >>
>> >> Is it a bit like the Duke of Wellington's "full report of the
>> >> Peninsular Campaign", which in total read "We won"? (Black Adder)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.ht
>> >ml
>> >
>> > I saw this on digg just now. They (dlink) obviously make more money
>> > paying the GPL when they make a product and don't comply with the
>> > rules of the GPL... I don't know if that's a good thing or not, the
>> > GPL don't go for damages.
>>
>> Hilarious : a company uses LINUX and what happens : end up in court
>> over some ridiculously minor infringement.
>
> If they don't understand the GPL that's their problem. However, if
> they'd used a proprietary OS without understanding the licence they'd be
> in more trouble, that I'm sure of. And it's not A company, if you'd RTFA
> you'd see there's been over 100 companies.
>

Mr Quark advocates stealing software; but then, he's a Microsoft boy,
so I suppose it's been MS's modus operandum so much in the past; at
least, until they've been caught each time. Free software needs no
theft, stealing software is wrong. Use Linux, observe the GPL.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Schshschshchsch.
-- The Gorn, "Arena", stardate 3046.2

Tim Smith · External Since: Apr 26, 2004 Posts: 2610

In article <a5mgu3-vmo.ln1 DeleteThis @ellandroad.demon.co.uk>,
Mark Kent <mark.kent DeleteThis @demon.co.uk> wrote:
> least, until they've been caught each time. Free software needs no
> theft, stealing software is wrong. Use Linux, observe the GPL.

How come stealing software is wrong, but stealing artwork is OK with you?

--
--Tim Smith

flatfish+++ · External Since: Dec 12, 2004 Posts: 2793

This message is not archived

Jim Richardson · External Since: Jan 15, 2005 Posts: 1227

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 18:43:39 -0700,
Tim Smith <reply_in_group RemoveThis @mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <a5mgu3-vmo.ln1 RemoveThis @ellandroad.demon.co.uk>,
> Mark Kent <mark.kent RemoveThis @demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> least, until they've been caught each time. Free software needs no
>> theft, stealing software is wrong. Use Linux, observe the GPL.
>
> How come stealing software is wrong, but stealing artwork is OK with you?
>

How come stealing software is piracy, a double-plus ungood to BillG but
it's just fine if it's a movie?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFFg0hd90bcYOAWPYRAmGUAKCg1sH9WImKuaF2qfFaR7N4z1IRgwCgmxBk
SWfnEk+Js+nGovcKeO9XRg8=
=v9+e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls
and looks like work."
-- Thomas A. Edison

Mark Kent · External Since: Feb 09, 2005 Posts: 5545

begin oe_protect.scr
Peter Kai Jensen <usenet DeleteThis @pekajemaps.homeip.net> espoused:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>>> I saw this on digg just now. They (dlink) obviously make more money
>>> paying the GPL when they make a product and don't comply with the
>>> rules of the GPL... I don't know if that's a good thing or not, the
>>> GPL don't go for damages.
>>
>> Hilarious : a company uses LINUX and what happens : end up in court
>> over some ridiculously minor infringement.
>
> You consider copyright infringement for profit to be a ridiculously
> minor infringement?
>

He's a windows chap - he sees nothing wrong with violation of copyright
- MS do it all the time.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Schshschshchsch.
-- The Gorn, "Arena", stardate 3046.2

flatfish+++ · External Since: Dec 12, 2004 Posts: 2793

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 22:39:58 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:

> begin oe_protect.scr
> Peter Kai Jensen <usenet.RemoveThis@pekajemaps.homeip.net> espoused:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hadron Quark wrote:
>>
>>>> I saw this on digg just now. They (dlink) obviously make more money
>>>> paying the GPL when they make a product and don't comply with the
>>>> rules of the GPL... I don't know if that's a good thing or not, the
>>>> GPL don't go for damages.
>>>
>>> Hilarious : a company uses LINUX and what happens : end up in court
>>> over some ridiculously minor infringement.
>>
>> You consider copyright infringement for profit to be a ridiculously
>> minor infringement?
>>
>
> He's a windows chap - he sees nothing wrong with violation of copyright
> - MS do it all the time.

Actually you are confused.
Roy Schestowich is the copyright violator.

That's the problem with OSS people, they think everything is free for the
taking.

====================================================================

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/dbb4e98895553672

So, it appears that Roy is using images on his blog that he has wholesale
copied from the authors without permission.

I noticed this on this article:

http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/03/03/scoble-given-up/

Interesting that he credits the image author (for that one), but he
neglected to actually get the authors permission to copy it. I was
supsicious that this might be the case and emailed the author to find out.
He confirmed that it was copyright infringement.

If he had merely linked to the image, it would have been more acceptable,
since he wouldn't have actually copied the image. However, that would beg
the bandwidth stealing argument of linking to images on other peoples
sites.

In any event, I have to wonder how many other images on his site have been
similarly misappropriated. Many of them have no credits at all.

Bummer for you Roy.

===================================================================

ed · External Since: Nov 20, 2006 Posts: 877

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 23:59:23 +0200
Hadron Quark <qadronhuark.TakeThisOut@geemail.com> wrote:

> How is using OSS "stealing"? You seem confused.

Depends how one uses it and how one interprets the means of use. If one
were to make changes to GPL code and distribute that as binary on a
website, then that's in effect stealing, its passing it off as part of
your own work, even if you acknowledge it's source, one still has to
provide that full source code, which is what DLink were not willing to
do (otherwise they would not be in court). Their penalty is so minor
that putting the code online would cost them more in bandwidth than what
they had to pay in court.

--
Regards, Ed :: http://s5h.net/qf
proud unix person
Episodes of the A-Team took roughly a month to shoot. This was
because whenever the van was used in a scene Mr. T would yell "To the
pity mobile!"

Hadron Quark · External Since: Sep 10, 2006 Posts: 1621

Mark Kent <mark.kent.TakeThisOut@demon.co.uk> writes:

> begin oe_protect.scr
> ed <ed.TakeThisOut@noreply.com> espoused:
>> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 20:38:57 +0200
>> Hadron Quark <qadronhuark.TakeThisOut@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ed <ed.TakeThisOut@noreply.com> writes:
>>>
>>> > On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:21:00 +0100
>>> > B Gruff <bbgruff.TakeThisOut@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> User-Agent: KNode/0.9.0
>>> >>
>>> >> Not a clue what it all really means.
>>> >>
>>> >> Is it a bit like the Duke of Wellington's "full report of the
>>> >> Peninsular Campaign", which in total read "We won"? (Black Adder)
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.ht
>>> >ml
>>> >
>>> > I saw this on digg just now. They (dlink) obviously make more money
>>> > paying the GPL when they make a product and don't comply with the
>>> > rules of the GPL... I don't know if that's a good thing or not, the
>>> > GPL don't go for damages.
>>>
>>> Hilarious : a company uses LINUX and what happens : end up in court
>>> over some ridiculously minor infringement.
>>
>> If they don't understand the GPL that's their problem. However, if
>> they'd used a proprietary OS without understanding the licence they'd be
>> in more trouble, that I'm sure of. And it's not A company, if you'd RTFA
>> you'd see there's been over 100 companies.
>>
>
> Mr Quark advocates stealing software; but then, he's a Microsoft boy,

No I don't.

> so I suppose it's been MS's modus operandum so much in the past; at

Would you like to say that to their faces?

> least, until they've been caught each time. Free software needs no
> theft, stealing software is wrong. Use Linux, observe the GPL.

How is using OSS "stealing"? You seem confused.

--
We come to bury DOS, not to praise it.
-- Paul Vojta, vojta.TakeThisOut@math.berkeley.edu

Peter KÃ¶hlmann · External Since: Jun 27, 2005 Posts: 1500

Hadron Quark wrote:

> Mark Kent <mark.kent.TakeThisOut@demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> ed <ed.TakeThisOut@noreply.com> espoused:
>>> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 20:38:57 +0200
>>> Hadron Quark <qadronhuark.TakeThisOut@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ed <ed.TakeThisOut@noreply.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:21:00 +0100
>>>> > B Gruff <bbgruff.TakeThisOut@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> User-Agent: KNode/0.9.0
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Not a clue what it all really means.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Is it a bit like the Duke of Wellington's "full report of the
>>>> >> Peninsular Campaign", which in total read "We won"? (Black Adder)
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.ht
>>>> >ml
>>>> >
>>>> > I saw this on digg just now. They (dlink) obviously make more money
>>>> > paying the GPL when they make a product and don't comply with the
>>>> > rules of the GPL... I don't know if that's a good thing or not, the
>>>> > GPL don't go for damages.
>>>>
>>>> Hilarious : a company uses LINUX and what happens : end up in court
>>>> over some ridiculously minor infringement.
>>>
>>> If they don't understand the GPL that's their problem. However, if
>>> they'd used a proprietary OS without understanding the licence they'd be
>>> in more trouble, that I'm sure of. And it's not A company, if you'd RTFA
>>> you'd see there's been over 100 companies.
>>>
>>
>> Mr Quark advocates stealing software; but then, he's a Microsoft boy,
>
> No I don't.
>

Well, actually you did. And yes, you are

>> so I suppose it's been MS's modus operandum so much in the past; at
>
> Would you like to say that to their faces?
>

It has been said to their faces more than once (by judges, no less)

>> least, until they've been caught each time. Free software needs no
>> theft, stealing software is wrong. Use Linux, observe the GPL.
>
> How is using OSS "stealing"? You seem confused.
>

Why do you think using GPLed software without adhering to the GPL is OK?
D-Link was told to play by the rules, and thats it. Even if it annoys you
MS-fanboys
--
Microsoft: which revised Eula do you want to accept today?

JPB · External Since: Jun 04, 2006 Posts: 59

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>> Mark Kent <mark.kent DeleteThis @demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
<snip>
>>> least, until they've been caught each time. Free software needs no
>>> theft, stealing software is wrong. Use Linux, observe the GPL.
>>
>> How is using OSS "stealing"? You seem confused.
>>
>
> Why do you think using GPLed software without adhering to the GPL is OK?
> D-Link was told to play by the rules, and thats it. Even if it annoys you
> MS-fanboys

Not quite, though D-Link were wrong. _Using_ the software does not require
accepting the General Public License, which is a unilateral *license*
grant, is not a contract, and is not an EULA.

_Distributing_ the software, on the other hand, as D-Link did, is copyright
infringement and when done commercially should be considered criminal. One
escape is to accept the General Public License, in which case compliance
makes it necessary to make the source code available to users of the
software, according to the provisions of the GPL - a free choice, either to
respect the copyright of the owner, or write one's one code and not "steal"
GPL code without respecting the license it was distributed with.

The other escape, of course, is to decide that it's perfectly OK to copy,
modify, and redistribute GPL code without respecting the license; I
actually wouldn't have any objection to that, because in order to do so it
would be necessary to repudiate copyright and license grants, which would
have various advantages including (by and large) making the GPL
unnecessary.

--
JPB