Re: "GPL requirement could have a chilling effect on derivativedistros"

[Tim Smith]

In article <mailman.3514.1151598508.9609.gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org>, Alfred
M. Szmidt wrote:
>    How about a link to this legislation, GNUtian ams?
> 
> Sure, copyright law.  But I doubt that you are familiar with that.

Try 17 USC 109.

This is the codification of the first sale doctrine.  Basically, it says
that if you have a legal copy of a copyrighted work, you do *NOT* need the
permission of the copyright owner to distribute it.

This is why you can sell a book to a used bookstore, without having to
contact the author and get permission.

...
>    Party B is not bound by the GPL because there was no assent to its
>    terms.
> 
> By distributing the copy Party B accepted the license.

That only works if distributing the copy is something that Party B is not
entitled to do without a license.  Because of first sale, Party B does not
need the copyright owner's permission to distribute this copy, and so the
act of distributing does not constitute acceptance of the offered license.

-- 
--Tim Smith