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

[Doug Mentohl]

amicus_curious wrote:

> "Doug Mentohl" <doug_mentohl@linuxmail.org> wrote in message 
> news:gmmuqd$odt$2@news.datemas.de...
> > amicus_curious wrote:

> > > > Your question is too complicated for a simple answer.

> > Please quote all relevant legislation in any jurisdiction ..

> > > 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 .. That seems to be a straightforward way of defeating at least 
> > > one of the distribution caveats contained in the GPL.

Since the GPL is more liberal than USC 109/17, then logicaly USC 109/17 
imposes restrictions your rights and according to the text USC 109/17 
only applies to embedded software and don't apply to first sale.

http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.html

> > Please quote all relevant legislation in any jurisdiction ..

> What part of 17 USC 109 did you miss?  That holds for the USofA and as far as I 
> know it is followed in most other countries.  If it is not, then too bad for 
> them.

What *is* your point, in relation to GPL software and USC 109/17 ?