|
osdir.com mailing list archive |
|
Subject: Re: Licensing question about the BSD - msg#00087List: org.gnu.discuss> that I've lawfully made: I can distribute them as I see fit (apart > from rental) without the authority of the copyright owner. There's no > copyright infringement and there's no contract violation ("no contract" > says FSF). That's it. If you fetch 20 copies of some GPl'ed software, you can give away _those_ 20 copies in the manner you wish. But for each and every one of those you do so, you have to decrement the counter. Give one, you keep 19. Until you get to 0. But if you have one copy, and you distribute copies of it, you're making a copyright violation. In the earlier case, you may still be sued (and reading the history of your posts here would give a quite interesting character report) for trying to work around copyright law, so maybe still liable. But that's hypothetical. All you say is simply laughable, if it didn't smell of bad intention. Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss Thread at a glance:
Previous Message by Date: click to view message previewRe: Licensing question about the BSDAlexander Terekhov <terekhov@xxxxxx> writes: > Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: > [...] >> <<the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under >> this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without >> the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of >> the possession of that copy or phonorecord.>> >> ^^^^^^^^^ >> >> So you can do whatever with _YOUR_COPY_ but you still can't >> redistribute copies of it. > > Downloads aside for a moment, the GPL permits reproduction, Under conditions. > and, under the idiotic "not-a-contract" theory, it just can't compel > me to relinquish the distribution right that I enjoy under the > copyright law (17 USC 109) being the owner of all those NEW > "particular copies" that I've lawfully made: Uh, you had no "lawful" right to make those particular copies: you had only _conditional_ rights granted by the GPL. > I can distribute them as I see fit (apart from rental) without the > authority of the copyright owner. But you could not create them in the first place without the authority of the copyright owner. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum Next Message by Date: click to view message previewRe: Licensing question about the BSDRui Miguel Seabra <rms@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 15:04 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> that I've lawfully made: I can distribute them as I see fit (apart >> from rental) without the authority of the copyright owner. There's >> no copyright infringement and there's no contract violation ("no >> contract" says FSF). That's it. > > If you fetch 20 copies of some GPl'ed software, you can give away > _those_ 20 copies in the manner you wish. Where "fetch" means "lawfully acquire". Something like buying a copy. Or having gained explicit permission to make such a copy. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum Previous Message by Thread: click to view message previewRe: Licensing question about the BSDAlexander Terekhov <terekhov@xxxxxx> writes: > Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: > [...] >> <<the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under >> this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without >> the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of >> the possession of that copy or phonorecord.>> >> ^^^^^^^^^ >> >> So you can do whatever with _YOUR_COPY_ but you still can't >> redistribute copies of it. > > Downloads aside for a moment, the GPL permits reproduction, Under conditions. > and, under the idiotic "not-a-contract" theory, it just can't compel > me to relinquish the distribution right that I enjoy under the > copyright law (17 USC 109) being the owner of all those NEW > "particular copies" that I've lawfully made: Uh, you had no "lawful" right to make those particular copies: you had only _conditional_ rights granted by the GPL. > I can distribute them as I see fit (apart from rental) without the > authority of the copyright owner. But you could not create them in the first place without the authority of the copyright owner. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum Next Message by Thread: click to view message previewRe: Licensing question about the BSDRui Miguel Seabra <rms@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 15:04 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> that I've lawfully made: I can distribute them as I see fit (apart >> from rental) without the authority of the copyright owner. There's >> no copyright infringement and there's no contract violation ("no >> contract" says FSF). That's it. > > If you fetch 20 copies of some GPl'ed software, you can give away > _those_ 20 copies in the manner you wish. Where "fetch" means "lawfully acquire". Something like buying a copy. Or having gained explicit permission to make such a copy. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum Loading Comments...
|
|
