On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:51:32 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 19:25:51 -0600
> Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:16:56 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:22:38 -0600
>> > Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> I'm not sure whether I agree that you have to own a copy of GPL
>> >> software to be a licensee
>> > 
>> > You can indeed obtain a license from the copyright holder without
>> > owning a copy. A license is an agreement between two parties, and I
>> > believe that quite often Microsoft Volume licensing deals do not
>> > include copies of the software. 
>> I did not say that such a thing was generally impossible.  The
>> question is whether the GPL itself provides for becoming a licensee
>> without making a copy.
> There are two activities that are normally forbidden by Copyright that
> are allowed when one accepts the GPL:
> 1. Making and distributing copies
> 2. Preparing derivative works.
> I believe that in both cases, the person or entity wishing to accept the
> GPL has to be in possession of a lawful copy. For example, if you steal
> a CD with GPLed software from me, you are not in a position to claim
> that you are entitled to redistribute this software under the GPL, as I

While I agree with your result, your result does not require that you can
only become a licensee by possessing a lawful copy.  Even if the the copyright
holder were to provide you a written license allowying you to copy his software 
at any time, you would still not have the right to come into my house unbidden
to copy from my hard drive.

Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to