On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 10:52:31 +0200 (CEST), "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Yes. Hence my conclusion that the statement in the GPL has no > value. Either I accept the GPL, in which case it's a truism (which > has no value), or I do not accept the GPL, in which case my > distribution by definition does not indicate my acceptance. > > If you do not accept it, then you do not have any right to distribute > the work.
Basically our discussion comes down to: "You can't do that!" "I just did!" This is about *legally can* versus *factually can*. I am physically able to distribute works without accepting their license. It is an infringement of the applicable copyright, sure. But I can perform the act anyway. "You can't do that!" "I just did!" You seem to think that because there is a way to distribute legally, and I distribute, I must have chosen this legal way. This is not necessary. I can choose to ignore the license and defy copyright law. I am physically able to distribute the work after I make that choice. Sue me if you want to make me stop. That statement in the GPL does not become true until I *HAVE* accepted the license. If I refuse to accept the GPL, its declaration that I am supposedly bound is without value. Merijn _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
