Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > John Hasler wrote: >> >> >> >> Tim Smith 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. > > You confuse conditions precedent with covenants. In the former case, > failure to fullfill condition precedent means that I had no permission > to copy in the first place. But restrictions on distribution of a > copy that I make (under authorization) just can't be conditions > precedent because a copy must be made first. Got it now?
Agreement is precedent to making copies. You can't drop it later. It is similar to buying things by bank draft. If I later decide that I don't relish paying, I can't just dissolve the bank account and let my vendor sort out the mess by himself. Even if I claim that at the time of purchase I was perfectly intending to hold up my part of the deal. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss