Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> Actually, I am with Terekhov on that one. The technical details of the >> underlying traffic don't change the legal nature of who makes available >> something that much. > > But who says that "making available" is violating copyright at all? > Some courts have found that it isn't.
Uh, they found that it is not a violation if nobody makes use of the opportunity. > We may be in a situation where the only person who is guilty of > violating the GPL is the person who requests the download! Are we still talking about the software distributed as part of the routers? > You're agreeing with Terekhov because you would like all manner of > things which may not be copyright violations to be included under > copyright and thus the GPL; recall the discussion we had a while ago > about derivative works and dynamic linking. I suggest you don't make statements about my motives. I consider myself better qualified for that. -- 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
