Re: EASTERBROOK's "quick look" on the GPL and Wallace's claim

[Alexander Terekhov]

Richard Tobin wrote:
> 
> In article <4558242D.B7B84F17@web.de>,
> Alexander "Plonker" Terekhov  <terekhov@web.de> wrote:
> 
> >> Typical Terekhov twisting.  I ask when you have a right to distribute,
> >> and you reply that you have a right to create.
> 
> >Under US Code Title 17, an owner of a copy "lawfully made" has a right
> >to distribute it "WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER". 17 USC
> >109.
> 
> That's about selling your copy, not distributing derivative works.

You're confused. 17 USC 109 is about distribution of copies (material
objects) "lawfully made" except one special class of copies made under 
17 USC 117 because 17 USC 117 itself imposes restrictions on their 
distribution (additional "exact" copies must be distributed "along with 
the copy from which such copies were prepared" and distribution of 
"adaptations" under 17 USC 117 requires permission... so that copyright 
owners in original works can collect extra $$$ for distribution of 17 
USC 117 adaptations or simply not allow this activity so that it 
doesn't interfere in market with licensed derivative works and/or 
originals). But when a copy (material object) is made under copyright 
license grants to reproduce and also create derivative works (*not* 
under 17 USC 117 which requires ownership of a preexisting copy to 
begin with), it doesn't matter whether it's an exact copy or a copy of 
a derivative work. The GPL requires to surrender the right codified in 
17 USC 109 to distribute without authority of the copyright owner (it 
mandates various requirements to provide written offers, etc.). A copy 
is "lawfully made" if it is made by the copyright owner or made under 
copyright license grants (copies made under exceptions to the copyright 
owner's exclusive rights aside of a moment). 

> 
> And 117 is about modifying for your own use, not distributing
> derivative works.
> 
> Try again?

Go on.

regards,
alexander.