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

[ZnU]

In article <Hshil.3427$Pm6.2163@newsfe08.iad>,
 Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:

> Rjack wrote:
> > Anyone who conveys copies of covered works is not bound by
> > the GPL's voidable terms and has a perfect defense of estoppel.
> 
> You're welcome to try this. How about making a version of GCC with
> a proprietary addition? Be sure to let us know how it turns out.

I don't see any fundamental logical flaw in the argument that allows 
this.

Let's say I want to create a commercial product based on GCC, and not 
distribute source. I form two corporations. Corporation A takes the GCC 
source, modifies it, and builds binaries. It then produces a million CDs 
containing these binaries, drops them in a box with a single CD 
containing source code, and delivers them to Company B. Company B throws 
the CD containing the source in the trash, and sells the million discs 
containing the binaries.

Company A hasn't violated the GPL because it made source available to 
all of the entities it distributed binaries to (namely, Company B). 
Company B hasn't violated the GPL because it never accepted the GPL; its 
resale of those discs was allowed under the first sale doctrine.

This clearly violates the spirit of the GPL. But ruling against it 
would, as far as I can see, require a judge to abandon one of the 
following: a) the first sale doctrine, b) the principle that 
corporations are legally separate entities, or c) the principle that 
contracts can't bind third-parties.

-- 
"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them
‹ that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer
apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too
small, but whether it works [...]"        -- Barack Obama, January 20th, 2008