[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: Rjack
Subject: Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:21:09 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Q: Am I bound by the GPL, by merely downloading, without affirmatively
accepting the GPL, yes or no?


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?


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

You can't make copies of GPLed code and convey those copies
to others unless you do so under the terms of the GPL. You
may be able to invoke a first sale claim if you convey a
copy that you have downloaded from a site that was distributing
the code properly. You may even be able to invoke the first
sale claim if you do this over and over. You cannot do this by
making your own copies from the downloaded file.
Give it a rest Hymen -- you're starting to falter. You're starting
to reason with all the clarity of a bottle of ink.

Rjack :)

reply via email to

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