I wrote: > The sale is then no longer an arms-length transaction. A US Federal > judge will see right through the subterfuge and tell A that it is a > distributor.
Hyman writes: > Why does it have to be arms-length? In order to be a first sale under the intent of the law. "First sale" clearly contemplates a transaction such as walking into a bookstore, grabbing a book, plunking down $20, and walking out. You propose a contract wherein the seller gives up some of his exclusive rights as author. Surely you don't expect the court to let A get away with not providing source when A has acquired the exclusive right to do so. > Where is the subterfuge? In the attempt to evade the intent of the GPL. > A software developer is perfectly free to enter an arrangement whereby he > agrees *not* to distribute software. If the software is GPLed, he cannot > require recipients not to distribute, but he is free to choose not to > distribute his own software, and to accept payment for doing so. Yes, of course he is. There is nothing illegal about what you propose. It just won't work as a GPL evasion. Do you think no one has ever tried to use a similar scheme to evade his obligations before? The courts have seen it all. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
