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

[Hyman Rosen]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/01-07482.PDF
> ... From the user's vantage point, SmartDownload could be analogized 
> to a free neighborhood newspaper, readily obtained from a sidewalk 
> box or supermarket counter without any exchange with a seller or 
> vender.

I'm glad you made the free paper analogy. What do you imagine the
reaction of the courts would be if someone showed up at the box
and took all the papers and started reselling them for pulp?

> Note that the Copyright Act doesn't define a (compound) right to
> "copy and convey"

In the case of downloading GPLed software, it's usually the case
that the user initiates the download, whereas in the Netscape case
it was the software itself initiating the download. But it may be
the case that you're right, and that you can first-sale distribute
a downloaded copy. You would still need to separately download each
copy that you wanted to distribute, and you would have to download
it directly to the distribution medium.