[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Question reguarding GNU FDL license
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: Question reguarding GNU FDL license |
Date: |
Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:38:33 +0200 |
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
>
> > You're talking bullshit, GNUtian Tobin. In the GPL context, B's right
> > to give a ("lawfully made") copy to C is not an exclusive right of A
> > and hence it can not be licensed. It's statutory right. 17 USC 109,
> > idiot. A copy can be "lawfully made" if it is made by the copyright
> > owner, made with the authorization of the copyright owner (i.e.
> > license),
>
> And a copy made under a license retains the license obligations.
A copy (i.e. material object) "retains" no obligations, retard. A copy
is not a legal person, stupid. Obligations of license contract are
"retained" by licensors and licensees, not copies made under license
contract.
regards,
alexander.
- Re: Question reguarding GNU FDL license, (continued)
- Message not available
- Re: Question reguarding GNU FDL license, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/09/13
- Re: Question reguarding GNU FDL license, David Kastrup, 2006/09/13
- Re: Question reguarding GNU FDL license, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/09/13
- Re: Question reguarding GNU FDL license, David Kastrup, 2006/09/13
- Re: Question reguarding GNU FDL license, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/09/13
- Re: Question reguarding GNU FDL license, Richard Tobin, 2006/09/13
- Re: Question reguarding GNU FDL license, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/09/13
- Re: Question reguarding GNU FDL license, Richard Tobin, 2006/09/13
- Re: Question reguarding GNU FDL license, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/09/14
- Re: Question reguarding GNU FDL license, David Kastrup, 2006/09/14
- Re: Question reguarding GNU FDL license,
Alexander Terekhov <=