In article <36bo8213jnt427il9o2tsb4ihic7fa2lcn@4ax.com>,
f/fgeorge <ffgeorge@yourplace.com> wrote:

BUT according to the discussion, Crunch3r modified it using a program
he had to purchase. The product of that program is now under its
license, not Berkeleys open source anymore.

No.  At best it is simultaneously under both licences, but in this case
it is a copyright infringement because, whilst Berkeley's copyright is still
valid, the licence for it has been voided by additional conditions being
applied.  The copyright of a derivative work is the copyright of all the
people that created parts of it and needs to be licensed by all of them.

Actually, this is a complex issue, if the non-GPL tool had a pure copyright
licence, it would only generate copyright in the resultant program if a 
non-trivial part of itself was included in that result.  However, most 
commercial software "licences" aren't actually true licences, but rather
contracts, which can impose restrictions that go beyond those implied
by copyright.

The relevant part of the GPL is:

    4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, distribute or transfer the
  Program except as expressly provided under this General Public License.
  Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense, distribute or transfer
  the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights to use
  the Program under this License.  However, parties who have received

Incidentally, by distibuting an infringing derivative work, it would
appear that Crunch3r has actually lost the right to use even the original
program!  (Depending on the conflicting licence terms, recipients may be
able to use it, but cannot legally pass it on unless they can legally
remove the conflicting terms, which is unlikely.  The explicit penalties 
are applied to the person trying to distribute illegally.)

IANAL TINLA.