On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/8/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > <sarcasm>That would be *really* easy to do.</sarcasm> To relicense the > > > entire GPL codebase would mean every contributor to every GPL project > > > would have to agree, possibly in writing. There are thousands, maybe > > > millions of them. > > > > If they don't mind quasi public domain... which is even better as far as > > I'm concerned. > > > > > > > > And FSF is really likely to want to retire the GPL. Just note that the > > > sections of the copyright act you have quoted allow you to copy for > > > lawful purposes, and to sell your original copy *on the condition that > > > you dispose of it*. > > > > What "original copy" and "the condition" are you talking about? In order > > to sell/dispose/distribute (as I see fit), I only have to be "the owner > > of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made" under copyright law. > > 17 USC 109. A copy can be "lawfully made" if it is made by the copyright > > owner, made with the authorization of the copyright owner (explicit or > > And that's what the GPL gives you.
Unrestricted downloads of the GPL'd stuff aside for a moment, the GPL gives me a copy or two. Thank you. The distribution of those copies (as I see fit) is made under 17 USC 109, not the GPL. Being not a contract (according to the FSF), the GPL is irrelevant at the time of distribution. regards, alexander.
