Alexander Terekhov writes: > On 12 Jan 2006 11:53:56 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov writes: > > > > > On 1/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > [...] > > > > Download the binary and the *corresponding* source code. While > > > > distributing only the binary. put on the CD, a file saying that the > > > > source code to every binary on the CD is available from you to the > > > > person you gave the cd. (``Sources are available from <address>'' > > > > will do). Now, if somebody says that you are doing commercial > > > > distribution, you can comply by giving sources to the persons who > > > > contact you at the <address>. (you now comply with 3(b) ). > > > > > > Hey Carrera, just ignore what the GNUtians say. If somebody says > > > that you must give sources "or else", reply "17 USC 109, piss off". > > > > Here is a suggestion of how you can put your bizarre legal theory to > > the test: > > > > 1) Buy a copy of relatively pricey commercial software. > > Nah. I prefer something for free. Several moons ago when I was challenged > by another GNUtian, I've "bought" (for USD 0) winxp64 download from > Microsoft and resold it on a CD for EURO 6.50 on ebay.de. Item 7133325141. > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2004-12/msg00095.html > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2005-03/msg00084.html > > And I'm still not in prison. How come?
You skipped step #5 in my suggested process, which is necessary for a variety of economic and PR reasons. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
