Re: loophole in the GPL?
Justin Wells wrote: The GPL says that if I "distribute" copies then I must provide source. I, however, maintain that I am doing no such thing--I am *selling* copies, transfering my ownership of that copy to someone else, not distributing them. The term "distribute" must be understood in the sense in which it is used in the Copyright Act. The term is not actually defined there, but is used thus: "distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending". So selling copies is a type, indeed the primary type, of distribution. This argument also fails the "laugh test"; if your argument makes the judge laugh (derisively), don't expect a decision in your favor. "How many legs does a dog have, if you call its tail a leg?" "Four. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one." --Abraham Lincoln -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.-- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
Re: loophole in the GPL?
Justin Wells writes: On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 02:52:38PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: The term "distribute" must be understood in the sense in which it is used in the Copyright Act. The term is not actually defined there, but is used thus: "distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending". So selling copies is a type, indeed the primary type, of distribution. However, I thought it was well established that a copyright license CANNOT prevent you from selling your copy of a copyrighted work. Mmmm, I think you're glossing over what "your copy" means here. I imagine that you're referring to the "first sale" doctrine, which restricts the ability of copyright holders to restrict resale of copies _that they sell_. First sale does not restrict the ability of copyright holders to restrict resale of copies _that other people make_. Once you have legally acquired a copy, you CAN sell it. That would be neat, because then you could make "fair use" copies for yourself, and then they would be legal, so you could sell them. The people you sold them to would then have legal copies, so they could make fair use copies, and then those copies would be legal, too, and they could sell them... This would be neat, but I don't think copyright law quite works that way. -- Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
Re: loophole in the GPL?
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 12:56:54PM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote: Mmmm, I think you're glossing over what "your copy" means here. I imagine that you're referring to the "first sale" doctrine, which restricts the ability of copyright holders to restrict resale of copies _that they sell_. First sale does not restrict the ability of copyright holders to restrict resale of copies _that other people make_. OK, that's the answer I was looking for. So, why can't book sellers restrict the resale of books by selling a copy to a distributor, and letting the distributor make the copies that are sold to the public? Justin
