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

[David Kastrup]

"amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:

> "Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov@web.de> wrote in message
> 4988D3FC.7462C27E@web.de">news:4988D3FC.7462C27E@web.de...
>>
>> You're mistaken, Hyman. 17 USC 109.
>>
> 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.

Not from a "legitimate source", but an _authorized_ copy.  Making copies
requires authorization.  Passing authorized physical copies on doesn't
(in the U.S.A.).  There is no magically "legitimate source" from which
every copy has the implicit unconditional blessing of the copyright
holder.  The authorization is bound to conditions.  The conditions don't
magically evaporate once you have a copy in hand.

> 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.

Again, "legitimate source" for unconditional copying is a brainchild of
yours, not of the GPL and not of copyright law.

-- 
David Kastrup