[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: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:54:05 +0100

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > You're misreading 17 USC 109.
> Not in any way relevant to your argument. The only way to make
> a copy of a GPLed work 

Right now I've downloaded a copy of a GPLed work from the authorized


Q: Am I bound by the GPL, by merely downloading, without affirmatively
accepting the GPL, yes or no?

A: ... (your answer, Hyman.)

> to convey to others is through the license
> granted by the GPL. Not that I mind, and I'm prepared to continue
> doing this forever, but we've been through this before, when you
> did not seem to understand that restrictions on the form of copying
> that a copyright holder grants are utterly routine. (You apparently
> did not know or believe that book authors sell hardcover and paper-
> back publication rights separately despite the fact that they are
> both for the same exact set of words.)

Hyman, Hyman,

Suppose that right now I've made a hardcover copy of a work
affirmatively made available to me (I've affirmatively accepted the
license contract) under the license to make only paperback copies.


Q: Am I violating the scope of the license by making hardcover copies
instead of (agreed) paperbacks only?

A: ... (your answer, Hyman.)

What does this have to do with the GPL, Hyman?


(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

reply via email to

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