Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> 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? > > Poor analogy. Letting go of a brick above my head, with the intention > to catch it (and even if you in fact did catch it, so I come to no > harm), would still be assault.
Then every driver who puts his foot on the accelerator is assaulting a lot of people since it requires him to take the foot off again (or even brake!), an active action, to stop the car. >> > 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. > > But if the copy was lawful, I don't *need* any GPL rights in order to > distribute it, so the question remains: is whether or not a copy is > lawfully made determined at the time the copy is made, or can it > depend on later events? It can be _decided_ by later events. Like loading a gun may or may not be preparation to murder. Further actions decide what it has been. Sort of a quantum dilemma. It is like the "I have never loved you" realization in a relationship. Once you realize it, it has always been that way. -- 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
