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

[amicus_curious]

"David Kastrup" <dak@gnu.org> wrote in message 
85tz79ev9a.fsf@lola.goethe.zz">news:85tz79ev9a.fsf@lola.goethe.zz...
> "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:
>
> > "Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov@web.de> wrote in message
> > 4988D3FC.7462C27E@web.de">news:4988D3FC.7462C27E@web.de...
> > > You're mistaken, Hyman. 17 USC 109.
> > That seems like the start of a cute trick.  If I make a copy from a
> > legitimate source, then it is a legitimate copy that I can give away.
>
> Not from a "legitimate source", but an _authorized_ copy.  Making copies
> requires authorization.  Passing authorized physical copies on doesn't
> (in the U.S.A.).  There is no magically "legitimate source" from which
> every copy has the implicit unconditional blessing of the copyright
> holder.  The authorization is bound to conditions.  The conditions don't
> magically evaporate once you have a copy in hand.
You merely play on  words.  A copy from a legitimate source is an authorized 
copy by its very nature  For example, you, as a true blue GPL follower, make 
me a copy of some FOSS program under the GPL and hand it to me along with 
the source, copy of the GPL and anything else necessary.  Then I say, "Fine! 
How about 999,999 more?".   And you graciously comply.  Now I have a million 
authorized copies that I can do with what I wish. For example imbed it in my 
device and sell the device with the embedded authorized copy to someone 
eager to use it.

> > I cannot copy it, but I can give it away.  So if I make a million
> > copies directly from the legitimate source, I have a million
> > legitimate copies that I can dispose of any way that I please, either
> > give them away or sell them if I can.  The GPL does not restrict that.
>
> Again, "legitimate source" for unconditional copying is a brainchild of
> yours, not of the GPL and not of copyright law.
Again a mere play on words.