Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> Conditional authorization does not magically turn into >> unconditional authorization. > > A promise on my part to forbear from distribution right under first > sale and instead do what you decree is a covenant, not a condition.
But no such promise is demanded. You don't need to promise anything. You can choose to heed the conditions or not. If you choose to heed the conditions, you get the additional rights over copyright. If you choose not to heed the conditions, you get only the default rights from copyright. > And it has really nothing to do with copyright. Breach of contract > is the only nonfrivolous claim you can make (provided that I have > fulfilled the real conditions and created authorized copies). Nonsense. No contract has been formed. The only claim you can make is for violation of copyright. And that's exactly what has been done in all cases of pursued GPL violations. > ----- > Adobe asserts that its license defines the relationship between > Adobe and any third-party such that a breach of the license > constitutes copyright infringement. This assertion is not accurate > because copyright law in fact provides certain rights to owners of > a particular copy. This grant of rights is independent from any > purported grant of rights from Adobe. The Adobe license compels > third-parties to relinquish rights that the third-parties enjoy > under copyright law. > ----- > > s/Adobe/FSF Too bad that the GPL license does not compel third-parties to relinquish rights that the third-parties enjoy under copyright law. So, like most of your quotations, it does not apply. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnuemail@example.com http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss