On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fine. I have been goaded into rebutting this specimen.
Most of this is focused on contract law issues. I've written a separate post suggesting the obvious alternative (Tort law) > > Since Section 0 says that the GPL grants you license to distribute this > > work, > > and since there's no part of the GPL that grants you license where Section 0 > > does not apply, in our hypothetical case we would have shown that the GPL > > does not grant you license to distribute this work. > > Wrongo. The GPL grants you license to copy, modify, and distribute A > under the applicable terms. Whether by "mere aggregation" or by > reductio ad absurdum, you may distribute some collections containing > A; and there is no basis in the text of the GPL for enforcing on the > licensee any division into some permitted collections and some > forbidden collections. So B may be distributed so long as the > applicable covenants of specific performance with respect to A are > honored. I'm assuming that we're talking about a case involving binaries for the work A+B, which means we're talking about a case where either 1) The applicable terms are being followed, and B is available under GPL terms 1a) B is merely aggregated with A in the context of these binaries, or 2) The applicable terms are not being followed, and B is not available under GPL terms, and the work A+B is a significant work in the context of copyright law. > > At this point, either: > > > > A) Copyright law doesn't apply, so it doesn't matter that you don't > > have license, or > > > > B) The GPL doesn't apply, so it doesn't matter that the GPL doesn't grant > > you > > license, of > > > > C) Distributing the work is prohibited by law. > > > > My argument is that if you reach C) by ignoring the second half of the > > definition of "work based on the Program", that you're doing something > > wrong. > > > > Does that make sense? > > No. Ok, I'm looking for how you think this doesn't make sense. > Copyright law applies to the copying of A. True. And to the copying of B. And, to the copying of A+B. > The distributor of B claims license under the GPL to copy A. This requires that B do so under certain terms, which is I think where our dispute lies, but continuing... > The court construes the terms of that license, settles all other > relevant questions of fact, and either decides that the plaintiff > is entitled to some relief or that he is not. No disagreement here. > It is then so ordered, and there's a path for appeals on > points of law. "Prohibited by law" doesn't mean jack. It's true that the court can (and will) interpret the law. However, "Prohibited by law" does in fact have meaning. -- Raul