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

[amicus_curious]

"Rahul Dhesi" <c.c.eiftj@XReXXArtif.usenet.us.com> wrote in message 
news:gmd114$et4$1@blue.rahul.net...
> "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> 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.