On 18 Mar 2006 22:46:24 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I thought it was rather obvious that I meant that in the sense of the > original scenario, and not in the general case.
I'm not sure what's not obvious in what I said. > You claim that the GFDL "can not be taken to apply where copyright law > does not apply". Right. > Ignoring for the moment that copyleft by necessity goes beyond what is > governed by copyright law, where in the scenario that I described does > copyright law no longer apply to dealing with the work? I disagree with your assertion that copyleft goes beyond what is governed by copyright law. Copyleft is a set of copyright limitations. People who do not satisfy the requirements of a copyleft license aren't granted the right to generate copies on the works that have those requirements. Copyright laws apply in those circumstances because copies of a copyrighted work are being generated. Copyright laws do not apply when there are no copies being generated and where no copy rights are being asserted. -- Raul
