Potential infringement of copyright

[d b]

Katie;
I have always deferred to your superior and more wide ranging knowledge. In this case though, since the OP is now a third person here who has talked about lawyers in relation to me (while defending walter's interests); I find this thread interesting.
-------------------------
Guenter brought up an salient point when he said : "Once you publish something under the GPLv3 you're bound to this license even as the original Author."

This means that when walter put
"This file is part of WP 34S. WP 34S is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the gnu........"
on PAGE ONE of the manual for the 3.0 release of WP 34S it was binding on him too, to not go and change the rules.

Walter's 3.1 says "This manual documents WP 34S. Wp 34S is free software: you can redistribute it and / or modify it under the terms of the gnu" which is a rewording of the 3.0 version. I'm not sure he was in the right to change the wording, but it doesn't change the intent.

Both refer to the gnu ver 3 and seem to say that the what fhub did was within the agreement. Walter's 3.3 changes the wording even more, but fhub's was based on the 3.1

As far as the spirit of the agreement, as I said:
In fhub's 3.3 he identifies both Walter Bonin AND Paul Dale as authors just as walter did in ver 3.0
In walter's 3.3 he identifies only himself as a writer, despite having given credit to Pauli in ver 3.0

It looks like fhub had a doubt so he went overboard in giving credit, even highlighting both the original authors names in colorized typeface.

The takeaway here for this creative group is: pick your copyright carefully. Divorce is not an option, although a screaming unhappy threatening roller coaster of a marriage is.