Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Arguing from common sense here, consider the case of someone who knows > > C but doesn't know English. It would seem very unfair for them to be > > punished merely for downloading the tar ball, editing the code, > > compiling it and running it. > > If that's true, then we might as well go home, the GPL is then > unenforceable.
What? How? > But actually, the law says that if they have no information, then they > should assume that they have *no* right to download the tarball. Would you apply the same argument to the file /index.html on a public web server? > > 1) I download a file from an ftp site without being asked to agree to > > anything first. > > Yes, but not without copying, and the copyright owner still has > copyright, and you are breaking it. I would guess that making something available by anonymous ftp or http with no password implies permission to download. It even seems to imply permission to store and redistribute from a caching proxy server or a search engine. There have been debates about these last two cases, but I've never heard of people being sued for using a web browser. Perhaps you should go after the people who distribute web browsers, seeing as they are encouraging people to download content without prior permission. Obviously it's different if the downloader knows the material is illegal. Edmund
