Re: Are Microsoft’s patent lawyers really thisdumb?

[Alexander Terekhov]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
> 
>    > Sure I can, I am talking about the actual _LICENSE_.  The FSF
>    > even sells nicely printed copies of it, did you know that?
> 
>    You mean the license _document_.  The license is an abstact bundle of
>    rights.
> 
> You deserve a cookie for nitpicking. :-)

Hey ams, uncle Hasler means that the FSF sells *copies* of GPL'd works
and (according to you) *copies* of the GPL itself (man oh man, one must
be thoroughly insane to buy that).

“Copies” are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work
is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the
work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either
directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “copies”
includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the
work is first fixed. 

(17 USC 101.)

Note that the license to the GPL (apparently copyrighted, not
copylefted) work itself is this:

"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
license document, but changing it is not allowed."

It isn't "free" (under "free" software definition).

regards,
alexander.

--
"Mathematics is primarily a language for ensuring reliable results 
in human social activity. "

         -- Columbia Professor Eben Anarcho-Dot Communist Moglen