"amicus_curious" <[email protected]> writes: > "David Kastrup" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> "amicus_curious" <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> "David Kastrup" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>> news:[email protected]... >>>> "amicus_curious" <[email protected]> writes: >>>> >>>>> "David Kastrup" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>>>> news:[email protected]... >>>>>> >>>>>> Try reading the GPL sometime. >>>>>> >>>>> Well, is it valid? >>>> >>>> That's entirely the choice of the recipient. If he considers it >>>> invalid, he does not have a license, and has to behave accordingly. If >>>> he considers it valid, he has a license granted under terms. As long as >>>> he heeds the terms, there is nothing to fear for him. >>>> >>> Well, that is your opinion certainly, but it begs the question. Is >>> there any requirment to honor a copyright asserted for something that >>> has no commercial value? Is such a copyright valid at all? >> >> Certainly. I can't break into a house and steal arbitrary things >> without commercial value. Ownership is not dependent on monetary >> conversion. >> > You keep trying to change the venue from copyright to something else.
You keep trying to change the topic from copyright to money. > Even so, if you steal nothing of value, you are not prosecuted to the > extent that you might be if you qualify for grand larceny. Since when is the punishment of robbery made dependent on its success? > That is set as a dollar amount. > >>> It is much easier to see that source for something that has commercial >>> value, say Windows itself, is a protected work since the value is not >>> disputed. But if it, like Linux, is not sold for a profit >> >> Huh? How do you suppose RedHat is making a living? >> > Providing support for people unable to get Linus to work by itself > apparently. Basically it is engineering by the pound. Or hour if you > prefer. Well, seems like appearances are deceiving to you. >>> and, worse, the only people making money from it are those who are >>> being paid to make it work for some client, it is not so clear. >> >> Nonsense. Copyright is attached to a work, not to its price tag. >> > But is it a "work"? With nothing unique or artistic, can source > qualify? If there is nothing unique in it, there would be no incentive to copy, would it? > You cannot copyright the contents of a telephone book, for example. Since when? Databases can be copyrighted, and particularly telephone book copycats have been sued out of business here. > Or a recipe for pork and beans. Tell that to the recipe book publishers. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
