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

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 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.
Thank God you finally admit this. Thank you. You just shot the ass
out from under the theory of "downstream" licensing. Thank you Hymen
--- You're a real sweetie.

> 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.
Thank you again Hymen!

> Anyone who does not wish to become a party to the license terms
> of the GPL is free to do so.
Quite true. Presumably though, some people *do* wish
to use the GPL.

> 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.
True.

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

Anyone who explicitly or implicitly accepts the voidable
terms contained in the GPL is a fool since illegal terms
are unenforceable.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)