Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

[Rjack]

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 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 are attempting to conflate scope of use restrictions under
17 USC 106(1): to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or
phonorecords;

with scope of use restrictions under 17 USC 106(2): to prepare
derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

That's a no-no Hymen and is definitely not 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.)

Sincerely,
Rjack :)