You're talking bullshit, GNUtian Tobin. In the GPL context, B's right
to give a ("lawfully made") copy to C is not an exclusive right of A
and hence it can not be licensed. It's statutory right. 17 USC 109,
idiot. A copy can be "lawfully made" if it is made by the copyright
owner, made with the authorization of the copyright owner (i.e.
license), or made under one of the exceptions to the copyright owner's
exclusive rights which doesn't exclude copies made under that exception
from the reach of 17 USC 109 such as 17 USC 117 "adaptations" -- non-
exact copies (i.e. they embody derivative computer program works
prepared by copies owners without a license from copyright owners,
under statutory right to modify computer program works instead). The
GPL blatantly ignores essential provisions in copyright law when it
claims that "nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works." This assertion is
utter bullshit, and you're utter idiot.
regards,
alexander.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
