[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 15:21:36 -0500

"Andrew Halliwell" <> wrote in message">
Hyman Rosen <> 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.

reply via email to

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