Re: The worst that can happen to GPLed code

[Stefaan A Eeckels]

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:16:44 +0200
Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:

> Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> [...]
> > As obviously the objective of all of this would be
> > to sell binaries without source, 
> 
> Without non-GPLed sources. Or with sources but not under the GPL
> (I mean non-GPLed modules). I see no problem in passing along the 
> GPLed sources (including derivative works).

OK, avoiding the GPL but still using the code, even
though is is against the wishes of the author. I get
your drift.

> >                                  compiling the "ripped"
> > file or code would create a derivative work, 
> 
> Compilers and linkers don't create derivative works. Binary 
> object code is just another form of the copyrighted source 
> code.

Then it is a copy, which you cannot distribute without
accepting the GPL. 
 
> > 
> > Care to explain how you manage to avoid making copies
> 
> Under your logic, I can't even read the GPL sources (from the
> GNU readline's tarball) without "accepting" the GPL. Get a clue.

Now how did you jump to that conclusion? I've never
said that you weren't entitled to make copies, but
that in order to distribute copies of a GPLed work,
you need to accept the GPL. Your scheme of invoking
first sale only works if you manage to avoid making
copies - a right not granted by first sale. It would
seem that whatever you do, you cannot avoid making
at least one copy, thus you cannot distribute. 
End of story.

-- 
Stefaan
-- 
"What is stated clearly conceives easily."  -- Inspired sales droid