Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You're talking bullshit, GNUtian Tobin. In the GPL context, B's right
> to give a ("lawfully made") copy to C is not an exclusive right of A
> and hence it can not be licensed. It's statutory right. 17 USC 109,
> idiot. A copy can be "lawfully made" if it is made by the copyright
> owner, made with the authorization of the copyright owner (i.e.
> license),
And a copy made under a license retains the license obligations. If I
tell somebody "you can use my car if you bring it back", that's an
authorization of the car owner, a license. But that does not mean
that he can just grab the car and leave it in Warsaw, since he has
"lawfully acquired access" to it.
The obligations of the license remain even with lawfully made copies.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
