[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: amicus_curious
Subject: Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 16:38:15 -0500

"Rahul Dhesi" <> wrote in message news:gmd114$et4$
"amicus_curious" <> writes:

That seems like the start of a cute trick.  If I make a copy from a
legitimate source, then it is a legitimate copy that I can give away.  I
cannot copy it, but I can give it away.  So if I make a million copies
directly from the legitimate source, I have a million legitimate copies that
I can dispose of any way that I please, either give them away or sell them
if I can.  The GPL does not restrict that.

An interesting argument that has been made before in these newsgroups.
But not one that anybody ever pleaded as a defense in an actual lawsuit
so far as I can tell.
Has any case that could turn on that ever been actually litigated to a verdict? If all that I am doing is redistributing an unmodified copy of the original work, the only GPL requirement that is pertinent is that I simply make that source available on my own. That has been the gist of the SFLC lawsuits vis-a-vis BusyBox, but they have all been settled or abandoned, in the case of Verizon, with no real burden on the defendant. The defendant could indeed argue the above as a defense (???) in that sort of case. The downside is that there would actually need to be some argument that would certainly cost more than the settlements seem to have cost.

reply via email to

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