[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Settlements

From: Hyman Rosen
Subject: Re: Settlements
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:41:39 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0

On 2/26/2010 4:28 PM, RJack wrote:
It seems that everyone in the World except a few GNUtians understand
that "licensing" (the act of contract formation) doesn't require the
copying and distribution of source code.

Everyone understands that granting a license doesn't
require anything except stating the terms of it.

The act of "granting the license" does *not* involve copying and
distribution of source code


The unlicensed use in these cases is copying and distribution, exactly
as specified in 17 USC 106.

Bull. The unlicensed use you claim is failure to license (form a contract).

In all of these cases, companies copied and distributed GPL-
covered code without adhering to the conditions of the GPL.
This made such copying and distribution an infringing use.

It's not a "condition" unless it involves the copying and distribution
of the source code. Contract formation (licensing) is a legal operation
and does not utilize source code exclusive rights.

The infringing use was copying and distribution.
You appear seriously confused.

Ever see a copyright license written in computer source code?
> If you have please show me said claimed license.

All GPL-covered code includes the GPL by reference to a file
which accompanies the source code, for brevity.

reply via email to

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