[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

From: Hyman Rosen
Subject: Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 10:41:05 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081105)

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Can a person a non-party lawfully distribute GPL software?
Sure. 17 USC 109.

Of course not. The cited reference is merely the first-sale
doctrine, which only applies to redistributing a legally
acquired physical copy of a copyrighted work. You cannot
make copies in violation of copyright and then distribute
them under this rule.

This is exactly the same wrong argument that the anti-GPL
folks are always making - chop up the rules into little
pieces, accept the ones that let you do stuff, and ignore
the ones that impose the requirements for doing so.

reply via email to

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