On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/8/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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. > > However, the law only gives you the right to sell and *dispose* the > work, e.g. selling a book. The law was not originally designed with > software in mind. So if you do not accept the GPL, then you can give a > copy of the program to me, but you will have to delete all of your own > copies.
Brrr. That's yet another GNU law, I suppose. > > This discussion is quite irrelevant - Alexander, if you have any > problems with the GPL that you want to be fixed, ask for them to be > discussed at the GPL3 conference. That's what it's for. The whole process is a PR thing and a tool for advancing rather silly political agenda. Nothing more. regards, alexander.
