The GPL has been upheld by courts in other countries, e.g. the Netfilter case. Please quote some actual court rulings then I'll consider believing you.
Can we get on to discussing the real GPLv3 issues now? Andrew On 1/8/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/7/06, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Alexander Terekhov: > > > > > 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. > > > > Sure, some parts of the GPL are highly questionable (especially the > > termination clause). But according to the usual interpretation of > > copyright law, you are still not allowed to distribute modified copies > > of a computer program, even if the original copy was obtain legally > > from the copyright holder. > > That's because absent a permission to prepare derivative works, > modifications fall under restricted "adaptations" under 17 USC 117 > (presuming they are done within its scope). But once you've got > a permission to prepare derivative works... it's then the same as > with exact copies -- thank you for your not-a-contract/no-promises- > made-in-exchange unilateral permission to prepare derivative works > and make copies, now it's time for 17 USC 109, dear Prof. Moglen. > > regards, > alexander. > -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
