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

[Hyman Rosen]

Rjack wrote:
> The GPL proposition that a contract can reach out and bind "all
> third parties under the terms of this License" is a legal flying pig

Fortunately, the GPL does not bind any third parties.
The GPL is a license that loosens the restrictions on
what may be done with copyrighted work if a licensee
agrees to accept the terms for such loosening.

> "It goes without saying that a contract cannot bind a nonparty."

Correct. Anyone who does not wish to become a party to
the license terms of the GPL is free to do so. In that
case, any copies of GPLed software he acquires may be
dealt with in the normal way, with the usual copyright
restrictions on making and distributing copies. The
originally obtained copies may be transferred under the
first sale doctrine, they may be run on computers, a
backup may be made for archival purposes, and so on.

Anyone who does more either implicitly accepts the GPL,
or implicitly violates copyright law.