Re: Circumventing the GPL

[Tim Smith]

In article <858wvp7jpc.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> 
wrote:
> >> You can claim either agreement or non-agreement with the conditions.
> >> Your choice.  In the latter case, you had no permission to copy in the
> >> first place.
> >
> > Ah, but note that in my hypothetical, when I made the copies, I had no 
> > intention of distributing them.  I was making them for my own use, and 
> > did use all of them.  Thus, at the time they were made, they were 
> > "lawfully made".
> 
> If I let go of a brick above your head with the firm intention to catch
> it again, and then I decide otherwise, that's fine?  Because there is no
> duty for people to catch bricks?

Poor analogy.  Letting go of a brick above my head, with the intention 
to catch it (and even if you in fact did catch it, so I come to no 
harm), would still be assault.

...
> > Can that later act retroactively change the creation of the copies
> > from lawful to unlawful?
> 
> You stop heeding your part of the deal and you stop having your rights.
> Simple as that.

But if the copy was lawful, I don't *need* any GPL rights in order to 
distribute it, so the question remains: is whether or not a copy is 
lawfully made determined at the time the copy is made, or can it depend 
on later events?


-- 
--Tim Smith