Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding

[Alexander Terekhov]

Forgot one thing...

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> 
> Wei Mingzhi wrote:
> >
> > > It is a contract, but one doesn't enter into the GPL contract as long
> > > as "copying, distribution, and modification" doesn't require a license.
> > > For example, 17 USC 109 allows distribution and 17 USC 117 allows
> > > copying and modification (adaptation).
> >
> > Read it carefully...
> 
> Read again what I wrote. Carefully.
> 
> >
> > The 17 USC 117 is about private modifications or private copies, and GPL 
> > does
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Note that "exact" copies (not adaptations) made under 17 USC 117 can be
distributed along with the copy from which such copies were prepared.

   Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this 
   section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with 
   the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the 
   lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. 

They are not private, contu6 elaborates: "[t]he sale of a copy of a 
program by a rightful possessor to another must be of all rights in 
the program, thus creating a new rightful possessor and destroying 
that status as regards the seller. This is in accord with the intent 
of that portion of the law which provides that owners of authorized 
copies of a copyrighted work may sell those copies without leave of 
the copyright proprietor.50 ... 50 17 U.S.C. § 109(a)."


> > _not_ actually put any restrictions on that. Read RMS' comments on Apple
> > Public Source License for details. And you still cannot release that 
> > modified
> > version without copyright holder's permission...
> 
> Yes, the GPL puts contractual restrictions on distribution of modified
> versions.
> 
> >
> > > Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization
> > > of the copyright owner.
> >
> > and the 17 USC 109 only talks about _physical_ media of the copyrighted
> > material, it makes no sense to say it allows redistributions.
> 
> The copyright act says nothing about "redistributions". This word is
> not used in the copyright act. And yes, the term distribution is about
> material objects (aka "copies"). 17 USC 109 says that an owner of a
> copy "lawfully made" is entitled to distribute it (rental and lease
> of software aside for a moment) "WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COPYRIGHT
> OWNER". The phrase "lawfully made" means that the copy is not infringing,
> either because it was made with the permission of the copyright owner
> (express or implied license.. implied like in free downloads) or it
> falls within one of the exceptions to the copyright owner's
> reproduction rights.

regards,
alexander.