Re: "GPL requirement could have a chilling effect on derivative distros"

[Linonut]

After takin' a swig o' grog, Alexander Terekhov belched out this bit o' wisdom:

>
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> The idea of the FSF is that you get access to the source together with
>> the binaries.  
>
> That's an idea, but its implementation is totally busted (outside the
> GNU Republic).
>
> Oh dear. Once again: I've got a CD full of GPL'd binaries (and no 
> source code on it at all) which I'm going to distribute to you under 
> contractual agreement imposing forbearance from exercising the rights 
> granted to you under the GPL by the copyright owners.
>
> 17 USC 109, aka "first sale" (also known as doctrine of copyright 
> exhaustion in Europe), dear.
>
> It's just amazing how many folks are being brainwashed by the FSF.
>
> The GPL gives "freedom" as in the GNU Republic where software belongs 
> to state (and hence it is regulated by state permits akin to lottery or 
> gun dealership which are neither contracts nor property rights), and 
> both 17 USC 109 and 17 USC 117 are simply nonexistent. 

What are you actually saying?  As far as I can tell, the above makes no
definite statment.

-- 
   Reboot America.