David Kastrup wrote:
>
> 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.
A copy (i.e. material object) "retains" no obligations, retard. A copy
is not a legal person, stupid. Obligations of license contract are
"retained" by licensors and licensees, not copies made under license
contract.
regards,
alexander.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
