gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[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: Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:08:34 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)

amicus_curious wrote:

"Rjack" <user@example.net> wrote in message O72dnc9JvZLOSRDUnZ2dnUVZ_szinZ2d@giganews.com">news:O72dnc9JvZLOSRDUnZ2dnUVZ_szinZ2d@giganews.com...

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.

I second your motion.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


reply via email to

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