Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> > And once again you attempt to misinterpret Wallace's case. >> >> Well, he _has_ no case, remember? That's what the court finally rules > > Both courts ruled (and erred) on the issue of injury (standing).
Of course, everyone except you errs in legal matters. Since it is not you setting the verdict, you should get a better hang of just _how_ the court is going to err before giving legal advice. > [...] >> But licenses are bound to particular physical copies. This is the > > The GPL license is "bound" to intangible WORK, not "particular > physical copies". Stupid. Oh, back against the wall so soon again? I am afraid you are wrong here. If you weren't, there could be no such thing as relicensing an identical work under different conditions. Also there would be no need for "fair use" laws, since a license would grant you access to the WORK and thus would entitle you to unlimited copying. The GPL _effectively_ gives you the possibility to behave _as_ _if_ it were bound to a particular WORK (once you acquire a particular physical copy of it). That is its purpose: to give the recipient a large set of freedoms together with any copy, including the freedom for replication, freedoms normally associated with being the copyright owner rather than a licensor. That's what the "P" in "General Public License" stands for. But the legal means by which this happens is the traditional one: by a license covering each particular copy. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
