Re: GNU licenses

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 12:15:35 +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt <ams@gnu.org> wrote:

   (AMS citing "Merijn de Weerd" <merijn+nospam@realemail.net>)

   >    If I distribute illegally, I am not bound by the license. See you
   >    in federal court for copyright infringement. I won't have to see
   >    you in state court where you try to compel specific performance of
   >    the license.
   >
   > What you are basically saying is: If I commit murder, then I am not
   > bound by the law.

   No. That is said nowhere in the above paragraph.  Rather, it says
   you *are* bound by the law (and will be charged and sentenced
   according to it). However, a license is not law.

A violation of a copyright license is a violation of the law.  If you
violate a copyright license, you will also be charged and sentenced
according to copyright law.  So you are indeed saying that since you
ignore the law, you are not bound by it, and thus cannot be sentenced.

   > Obviously, you are bound by the law, and in the
   > case of violating the license, bound by the license.

   You are never *bound* by the GPL. 

Yes you are, I suggest you read the wording of the GNU GPL, section 5
to be exact.

   The GPL is a unilateral, but conditional, grant of rights. If you
   satisfy the conditions, you are granted a right.  If you don't
   satisfy the conditions, you are not granted it, and you will not be
   allowed to distribute the work without breaking copyright law
   (which you are bound by, whether you accept it or not).

And thus you are bound by the license, since the license is a
extention of copyright law.

   >    And that text in the GPL does not change this one bit.
   >
   > Actually, it does, if the GPL didn't state this you would be allowed
   > to do it, you are not, and thus bound by the license.

   Except that it says "5. You are not required to accept this License, ...".
   If you don't accept the license, it does not apply to you. You are *not*
   bound by it in any way. You are still in violation of copyright law, since
   nothing else gives you a right to distribute.

If it does not apply to me, then I can distribute binaries without
providing source coed.  I cannot, since this is a violation of
copyright law, and the license.  So I am bound by the license, and
copyright law.

   I.e., fail to satisfy conditions of the GPL =>
      no grant of right to distribute =>
        distribution violates copyright law.

And this I am bound by the license.  I fail to see why you are aruging
the opposite when you even show a pretty graph of how you are infact
bound by the GNU GPL.