[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: amicus_curious
Subject: Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 15:16:08 -0500

"Rjack" <> wrote in message">

What are the legal differences in a) downloading directly to a DVD and/or b) downloading to the hard drive and then copying to a
 DVD. Please quote all relevant legislation in any jurisdiction..

Your question is too complicated for a simple answer.

Accessing a publicly available URL containing an HTTP text file is
almost certainly not copyright infringement -- beyond that anything
can go. Examination of the visual presentation of the HTTP in a
browser will indicate where deeper links *may* lead. The default
rule of US copyright law is no permission means infringement. Be
careful about downloading anything other than another HTTP text file.

Copyright infringement problems arise if you click on a URL that
results in downloading a copyrighted file without permission:

But in the context of this thread, the downloading is expressly permitted and the GPL allows for your unfettered personal use of both the binary image and the source code. There is no limit on how many copies you can download as well. So the end result is that you have a number of copies of the GPL'd work that are all legitimately obtained and so may be disposed of according to the liberal provisions of 17 USC 109. That seems to be a straightforward way of defeating at least one of the distribution caveats contained in the GPL.

reply via email to

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