[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: "GPL requirement could have a chillingeffectonderivativedistros"

From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
Subject: Re: "GPL requirement could have a chillingeffectonderivativedistros"
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 12:04:38 +0100

Seg, 2006-07-03 às 12:13 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> [...]
> > Fine, then you can prove you have a lawful copy, and exercise your
> > right of first sale. I've no problem with that. Just don't go and copy
> > that copy on the pretext you're into saving bandwidth.
> You don't grok it, Eeckels. Suppose I've got a lawful copy. Now I need 
> another copy. I go to online shop of my friend and buy a bunch of new 
> copies. In download form. Without any "I agree" re the GPL. His download 
> page shows the same MD5 or whatever same sig as the copy I've got 
> already. What's I'm saying is that license ("to save bandwidth") is 
> implied and that it doesn't constitute acceptance of the GPL. And you 
> must be a total idiot to argue otherwise. Now please piss of with your 
> "honesty".

As they are so identical, I have serious doubts the courts will tend to
buy your argument. It goes both ways, you see...

If you can't prove you got *another* copy from your friend's shop, then
since the courts can't distinguish they have to go with copyright. Do
you have the right to distribute that copy?

If you can't prove it's a lawfull copy (because they aren't
distinguishable) then how can it be conceivable to allow you do
distribute what may be illegal?

I seriously doubt the courts won't follow the safest route, which is to
uphold copyright and forbid you copyright-circunvention scheme.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente

reply via email to

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