Hyman Rosen wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > I still don't get your point, Hyman. > > If you wish to make a copy of GPLed code and convey it, > you must abide by the restrictions of the GPL, including > when you make such a copy by downloading it.
Note that the Copyright Act doesn't define a (compound) right to "copy and convey", instead it defines separate rights to reproduce and distribute whereby severely limiting the exclusive right to distribute by 17 USC 109. Basically, 17 USC 109 says that 17 USC 106 (3) is meant to punish pirates distributing (while not engaging in reproduction of) copies unlawfully made in the same way as pirates making unlawful copies (but not necessarily distributing those). As for your "must", see http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/01-07482.PDF "Netscape's SmartDownload, ... allows a user to download and use the software without taking any action that plainly manifests assent to the terms of the associated license ... Netscape argues that the mere act of downloading indicates assent. However, downloading is hardly an unambiguous indication of assent. The primary purpose of downloading is to obtain a product, not to assent to an agreement. ... Netscape's failure to require users of SmartDownload to indicate assent to its license as a precondition to downloading and using its software is fatal to its argument that a contract has been formed. ... From the user's vantage point, SmartDownload could be analogized to a free neighborhood newspaper, readily obtained from a sidewalk box or supermarket counter without any exchange with a seller or vender. It is there for the taking. ... Defendants argue that this case resembles the situation where a party has failed to read a contract and is nevertheless bound by that contract. See, e.g., Powers v. Dickson, Carlson & Campillo, 54 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1109, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 261 (Cal.Ct.App. 1997); Rowland v. PaineWebber Inc., 4 Cal.App.4th 279, 287, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 20 (Cal.Ct.App. 1992). This argument misses the point. The question before me is whether the parties have first bound themselves to the contract. If they have unequivocally agreed to be bound, the contract is enforceable whether or not they have read its terms." Under your silly GNUtian logic, plaintiffs are either IP thieves or must be bound by the licensing provisions (including arbitration clause in Netscape's license). Yet AOL/Netscape didn't countersue for copyright infringement and instead agreed to quite draconian settlement. How come? 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
