David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > > [...] > >> In mine, the GPL reads: > >> > >> (clause 1) > >> > >> You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, > >> and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange > >> for a fee. > > > > That's not about copying, stupid. It's about a "physical act of > > transferring a copy" > > Well, it would be pretty foolish to charge someone for copying > something without actually giving him the copy afterwards...
Uh, retard. Copying and distribution (of copies made by guess what? yes, it's called *copying*, stupid) are two different "acts". We've already established that the later is not required to be gratis (it, in fact, doesn't even need a license because 17 USC 109 is good enough for authorized copies, including copies of derivative works prepared under the GPL license). See the light now, GNU genius? Hint: copying is about making copies. And "copies" are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. 17 USC 101. Repeat: "copies" are material objects. The CD is a "copy." "Works" are the things fixed in a "copy." There can be many "works" fixed on a CD, each being a "copy." [...] > > And licensing to do what? Idiot. > > To use and redistribute Copyright is about copying (liability for distribution of pirated copies made by someone else aside for a moment), not use. Use (as far as it requires copying) of computer programs is permitted under 17 USC 117 (this section is called "Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs"). As for "redistribute", see above, retard. regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
