Hyman Rosen wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > You're misreading 17 USC 109. > > Not in any way relevant to your argument. The only way to make > a copy of a GPLed work
Right now I've downloaded a copy of a GPLed work from the authorized source. Fact. Q: Am I bound by the GPL, by merely downloading, without affirmatively accepting the GPL, yes or no? A: ... (your answer, Hyman.) > to convey to others is through the license > granted by the GPL. Not that I mind, and I'm prepared to continue > doing this forever, but we've been through this before, when you > did not seem to understand that restrictions on the form of copying > that a copyright holder grants are utterly routine. (You apparently > did not know or believe that book authors sell hardcover and paper- > back publication rights separately despite the fact that they are > both for the same exact set of words.) Hyman, Hyman, Suppose that right now I've made a hardcover copy of a work affirmatively made available to me (I've affirmatively accepted the license contract) under the license to make only paperback copies. Fact. Q: Am I violating the scope of the license by making hardcover copies instead of (agreed) paperbacks only? A: ... (your answer, Hyman.) What does this have to do with the GPL, Hyman? regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
