Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak

[David Kastrup]

RJack <user@example.net> writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> On 2/7/2010 7:19 AM, RJack wrote:
>>> If "authorizing" is reserved as "exclusive" for the "author" of a
>>> work how does a "non-owner" do any authorizing?
>>
>> Because the original author has authorized him to do so.
>
> Sorry Hyman, only the U.S. Congress has the power to write the
> copyright laws and "authorizing others to authorize" simply doesn't
> appear in 17 USC sec. 106 delineating the rights of owners of
> copyrights.

You mean, the author does not have the right to let a publisher create
copies authorized for reading?  Or that authorization to read is so
utterly different from authorization to copy that the latter can't be
delegated to a different party?

> Only in your Marxist land of GNU are copyright laws written that way.

Authorization for legal acts is not particular to copyright law.

> Your socialist interpretation of copyright law

Yaddy, yadda, yadda.

Don't you have better things to do with your time than to spout
ridiculous nonsense?

-- 
David Kastrup