Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Rjack]

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> Your severe reading comprehension problem is showing up again.

Your severe legal comprehension problem concerning U.S. law is
showing up again.

> There is absolutely not requirement that the source has have to 
> be "changed" in any shape or form by the GPL.
>
> The mere fact that you are distributing the software (usually the
>  binaries, or as firmware) requires the distributor to make the 
> source (and the very *same* source for the binaries) available.

You claim this because of sec. 3(a) of the GPL:

*******************************************************************
"3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms
of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the
following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software
interchange; or . . ."
*******************************************************************

Section 3 of the GPL incorporates Section 2 which is rendered
unenforceable due to 17 USC 301(a). The GPL was authored by legal
quacks who denied that a copyright license a contract so as to evade
the consequences of 17 USC 301(a).
http://lists.essential.org/upd-discuss/msg00131.html



> Failing to do so will put the distributor at odds with copyright 
> law

Not under U.S. copyright law.

> Nobody can come up with "the source is not changed, hunt it down 
> yourself"
>
> < snip >

Sincerely,
Rjack :)