[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:00:30 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > And once again you attempt to misinterpret Wallace's case.
>> Well, he _has_ no case, remember?  That's what the court finally rules
> Both courts ruled (and erred) on the issue of injury (standing).

Of course, everyone except you errs in legal matters.  Since it is not
you setting the verdict, you should get a better hang of just _how_
the court is going to err before giving legal advice.

> [...]
>> But licenses are bound to particular physical copies.  This is the
> The GPL license is "bound" to intangible WORK, not "particular 
> physical copies". Stupid.

Oh, back against the wall so soon again?  I am afraid you are wrong
here.  If you weren't, there could be no such thing as relicensing an
identical work under different conditions.  Also there would be no
need for "fair use" laws, since a license would grant you access to
the WORK and thus would entitle you to unlimited copying.

The GPL _effectively_ gives you the possibility to behave _as_ _if_ it
were bound to a particular WORK (once you acquire a particular
physical copy of it).  That is its purpose: to give the recipient a
large set of freedoms together with any copy, including the freedom
for replication, freedoms normally associated with being the copyright
owner rather than a licensor.  That's what the "P" in "General Public
License" stands for.  But the legal means by which this happens is the
traditional one: by a license covering each particular copy.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

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