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

[Andrew Halliwell]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
>> I form two corporations...
> 
> This works fine, as long as the copyright holders can't
> prove that the two companies are just a sham created to
> violate their rights. If they're really separate, it's OK.

Not for the second company it isn't.
They're violating copyright.
If they don't agree with the GPL and refuse to accept its terms they have no
right to distribute, and as they're not distributing the source that means
they are in violation from the start.

Remember, GPL is a permissive license. Standard copyright law holds sway
whenever the GPL is not in action. And they are illegally shipping pirated
software as they have absolutely no permission to distribute it.
-- 
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |                                                 |
|   Andrew Halliwell BSc   | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!"          |
|            in            | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
|     Computer Science     | - Father Jack in "Father Ted"                   |