[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The worst that can happen to GPLed code

From: Stefaan A Eeckels
Subject: Re: The worst that can happen to GPLed code
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:10:03 +0200

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:16:44 +0200
Alexander Terekhov <> wrote:

> Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> [...]
> > As obviously the objective of all of this would be
> > to sell binaries without source, 
> Without non-GPLed sources. Or with sources but not under the GPL
> (I mean non-GPLed modules). I see no problem in passing along the 
> GPLed sources (including derivative works).

OK, avoiding the GPL but still using the code, even
though is is against the wishes of the author. I get
your drift.

> >                                  compiling the "ripped"
> > file or code would create a derivative work, 
> Compilers and linkers don't create derivative works. Binary 
> object code is just another form of the copyrighted source 
> code.

Then it is a copy, which you cannot distribute without
accepting the GPL. 
> > 
> > Care to explain how you manage to avoid making copies
> Under your logic, I can't even read the GPL sources (from the
> GNU readline's tarball) without "accepting" the GPL. Get a clue.

Now how did you jump to that conclusion? I've never
said that you weren't entitled to make copies, but
that in order to distribute copies of a GPLed work,
you need to accept the GPL. Your scheme of invoking
first sale only works if you manage to avoid making
copies - a right not granted by first sale. It would
seem that whatever you do, you cannot avoid making
at least one copy, thus you cannot distribute. 
End of story.

"What is stated clearly conceives easily."  -- Inspired sales droid

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]