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

[amicus_curious]

"Andrew Halliwell" <spike1@ponder.sky.com> wrote in message 
gkt066-8q6.ln1@ponder.sky.com">news:gkt066-8q6.ln1@ponder.sky.com...
> 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.

No they are not.  Company A has the right to distribute and the copies 
received by Company B are legitimate copies and so can be disposed of under 
17 USC 109.

> 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.
They are permitted under 17 USC 109.  The GPL cannot bind them as it has not 
privity for Company B.  Once a copy is fixed and authorized, as due to the 
work of company A, it is free as in freedom.  No concern for Messrs Stallman 
or Moglen.

> 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.
17 USC 109 is standard copyright law and it indeed holds sway here.