"David Kastrup" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"amicus_curious" <[email protected]> writes:
"Alexander Terekhov" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
You're mistaken, Hyman. 17 USC 109.
That seems like the start of a cute trick. If I make a copy from a
legitimate source, then it is a legitimate copy that I can give away.
Not from a "legitimate source", but an _authorized_ copy. Making copies
requires authorization. Passing authorized physical copies on doesn't
(in the U.S.A.). There is no magically "legitimate source" from which
every copy has the implicit unconditional blessing of the copyright
holder. The authorization is bound to conditions. The conditions don't
magically evaporate once you have a copy in hand.
You merely play on words. A copy from a legitimate source is an authorized
copy by its very nature For example, you, as a true blue GPL follower, make
me a copy of some FOSS program under the GPL and hand it to me along with
the source, copy of the GPL and anything else necessary. Then I say, "Fine!
How about 999,999 more?". And you graciously comply. Now I have a million
authorized copies that I can do with what I wish. For example imbed it in my
device and sell the device with the embedded authorized copy to someone
eager to use it.
I cannot copy it, but I can give it away. So if I make a million
copies directly from the legitimate source, I have a million
legitimate copies that I can dispose of any way that I please, either
give them away or sell them if I can. The GPL does not restrict that.
Again, "legitimate source" for unconditional copying is a brainchild of
yours, not of the GPL and not of copyright law.
Again a mere play on words.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
