Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

[Hyman Rosen]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> You're misreading 17 USC 109.

Not in any way relevant to your argument. The only way to make
a copy of a GPLed work to convey to others is through the license
granted by the GPL. Not that I mind, and I'm prepared to continue
doing this forever, but we've been through this before, when you
did not seem to understand that restrictions on the form of copying
that a copyright holder grants are utterly routine. (You apparently
did not know or believe that book authors sell hardcover and paper-
back publication rights separately despite the fact that they are
both for the same exact set of words.)