[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Circumventing the GPL
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Circumventing the GPL |
Date: |
Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:11:27 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) |
Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> writes:
> In article <85iquux95b.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
> wrote:
>> >> > The copies were pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am clearly
>> >> > the
>> >> > owner of the copies. So, why can't I take advantage of first sale and
>> >> > sell them, without the need of copyright permission?
>> >>
>> >> Because you agreed not to sell them without source when you accepted the
>> >> GPL which you did when you made the copies.
>> >
>> > Ahhh. But don't you know that the GPL is not a contract (agreement) in
>> > the GNU Republic, uncle Hasler? :-)
>>
>> You can claim either agreement or non-agreement with the conditions.
>> Your choice. In the latter case, you had no permission to copy in the
>> first place.
>
> Ah, but note that in my hypothetical, when I made the copies, I had no
> intention of distributing them. I was making them for my own use, and
> did use all of them. Thus, at the time they were made, they were
> "lawfully made".
If I let go of a brick above your head with the firm intention to catch
it again, and then I decide otherwise, that's fine? Because there is no
duty for people to catch bricks?
> It was only later, when they were now just physical junk to me, that I
> decide to dispose of them the same way I do with other excess physical
> junk.
You don't have that choice.
> Can that later act retroactively change the creation of the copies
> from lawful to unlawful?
You stop heeding your part of the deal and you stop having your rights.
Simple as that.
> I think that if I were making the copies with intent to distribute,
> then a good argument could be made that the copies are unlawful. The
> court would see this as trying to cheat on the license, and find some
> way in equity to bitch slap me.
>
> But that's not my hypothetical--in my hypothetical there was never any
> intent to cheat.
It doesn't matter. The law does not require judges to read minds, it
relies on facts. If I decide to kill you and later change my mind
before I do anything, no law in the world can pursue me for it. Intent
is not actionable. Preparations and attempts are.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- Re: Circumventing the GPL, (continued)
- Re: Circumventing the GPL, Hyman Rosen, 2008/07/25
- Re: Circumventing the GPL, John Hasler, 2008/07/25
- Re: Circumventing the GPL, Alexander Terekhov, 2008/07/25
- Re: Circumventing the GPL, David Kastrup, 2008/07/25
- Re: Circumventing the GPL, Alexander Terekhov, 2008/07/25
- Re: Circumventing the GPL, David Kastrup, 2008/07/25
- Re: Circumventing the GPL, Alexander Terekhov, 2008/07/25
- Re: Circumventing the GPL, David Kastrup, 2008/07/25
- Re: Circumventing the GPL, Alexander Terekhov, 2008/07/25
- Re: Circumventing the GPL, Tim Smith, 2008/07/25
- Re: Circumventing the GPL,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Circumventing the GPL, Tim Smith, 2008/07/25
- Re: Circumventing the GPL, David Kastrup, 2008/07/26