[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: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:29:44 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
I still don't get your point, Hyman.
If you wish to make a copy of GPLed code and convey it, you must abide by the restrictions of the GPL, including when you make such a copy by downloading it.

Note that the Copyright Act doesn't define a (compound) right to "copy and convey", instead it defines separate rights to reproduce and distribute whereby severely limiting the exclusive right to distribute by 17 USC 109.

The FSF and GPL3 tries to pull a fast one by substituting the term
"convey" for the term "distribute" as it is used in 17 USC 106(3):

"(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to
the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental,
lease, or lending;"

Regardless of whether you speak of "intent to distribute" or
"actual distribution" the term "distribute" means to "transfer
physical copies to the public".

The FSF attempts to substitute the term "convey" which in turn
incorporates the term "propagation" as defined in the GPL3:

To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other
parties to make or receive copies.  Mere interaction with a user
through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not

To "propagate" a work means to do anything with it that, without
permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for
infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on
a computer or modifying a private copy.  Propagation includes
copying, distribution (with or without modification), making
available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well.

*PRESTO* -- "distribution now includes "copying" !!!!
It is verbal machinations such as this that completely
discredit the FSF's attempts to publicly transform
copyright law into socialist policy.

Hymen should know better -- FOR SHAME, FOR SHAME HYMEN.

Rjack :)

reply via email to

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