From The Spanish TMW

[LtCl KILGORE]

I didn't realise it was trolling... sorry

Trolling is bad, I mean ... real bad !

~ But that bad is now tolerated inside the Off Topic sub-section : relax and enjoy !

[AxlTrozz]

I just want to clarify is NOT spanish, is brazilian portuguese. I would say don't even bother about that, if they violate GPL sooner or later they will find is illegal and get in trouble for that.

Len, the act of take your work, modify just a little and put their own stamp is something is going to happen regardless the license you are using, is called piracy and even big companies have this issues, son don't feel discouraged keep working on your project and GPL, ignore those cheap tries of graphic art and you will see they won't last.

Regards

[Crush]

Allowing people to create derivate works without your explicit consent is the most important part of the GPL. When you can't live with people exercising this right you shouldn't license work under GNU GPL.

[Len]

Allowing people to create derivate works without your explicit consent is the most important part of the GPL. When you can't live with people exercising this right you shouldn't license work under GNU GPL.

Not not the problem here, he can make derivate works all day so long as he keeps my name in the source code

But isn't that a violation of the GPL?

Well technically I think your supposed to put a tag onto a image indicating its GPL, and who the authors of the file are, then your supposed to leave the author tag intack when you edit the file (though you can also add your own). I think the mistake is that len didn't do this (like most of our pixel artist).

So while they are at fault, I believe there is fault on len's part for not properly licensing the file

Though... I maybe completely mistaken on this.

it might not be GPL until I do

"contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License"
"This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License."
"The GNU General Public License may be chosen to protect a Work of Art provided its source code is clearly defined."
"
Sequential distribution, such as radio-broadcasting require a verbal or visual notification of such information before the broadcast. Mention of URLs along with a short description of the GNU/GNUArt philosophy is an acceptable fulfillment of this requirement.

For example :
"You'll now hear the "Free Software Song" originally written and sung by RMS (http://www.stallman.org) remixed by Tompox (http://www.tompox.com). This remix is protected by the GNU General Public License (http://www.gnu.org) and you can find more about such distribution of music on the web site http://gnuart.org...

If you find that such mention is long and boring, we therefore wonder how you can bear the much longer FBI Warnings that appears at the beginning of most DVDs. Also, please consider that GPL'ed Art is Free for use."
http://gnuart.org/english/gnugpl.html

[Platyna]

my problem is that all he did was poorly edit something I made, and then stamped his name without even mentioning me. This makes me a little scared and not sure if I want to continue development in GPL

He has broken GPL. You need to provide copy of GPL licence that contains author line information when publishing derivative work.

Copyright (C) yyyy name of author

This program is free software; you can
redistribute it and/or modify it under
the terms of the GNU General Public
[...]

Regards.