Tim Smith wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Tim Smith wrote: > > > 1. Acquire a lawful copy of a GPL binary. Doesn't matter how--download > > > it from somewhere, compile it from source, whatever. > > > 2. Make copies of the binary. GPL says this is OK. > > > 3. Sell or give away those copies. They are lawfully made copies, and > > > the person owns those particular copies, so this seems to fall under > > > first sale. > > > > Nope. GPL3p2 says > > "You may make, run and propagate covered works that you > > do not convey, without conditions so long as your license > > otherwise remains in force." > > Ah, but what about GPLv3 section 0, which includes this: > > To ³propagate² a work means to do anything with it that, without > permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for > infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on > a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes > copying, distribution (with or without modification), making > available to the public, and in some countries other activities as > well. > > If you are distributing your copies under the protection of first sale, > then that is not propagation, as defined in the first sentence of that > paragraph. The second paragraph says propagation includes distribution, > but the question then arises is that meant to be independent of the > first sentence, or is it illustrative? That is, does it only include > distribution that would make you liable under copyright law?
Professor Lee Hollaar*** (who worked on Internet, copyright, and patent issues as a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Fellow) has commented regarding GPLv3 wording (and apparently his comments were simply dismissed from consideration by RMS Eben & Co.) on http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments system: ----- comment 388: Not a correct statement of copyright law Regarding the text: However, nothing else grants you permission to propagate or modify the Program or any covered works. In section: gpl3.notacontract.p0.s3 Submitted by: hollaar comments: This is not a correct statement of copyright law, at least in the United States. With respect to "propagate", it is likely a tautology because of the defintion of "propagate" covering only things "that require permission under applicable copyright law". But for "modify", 17 U.S.C. 117 permits the "owner of a copy of a computer program" to make an "adaptation" in particular circumstances, and makes it clear that making that adaptation does not "infringe copyright if you do not accept this License." It also does not seem to recognize the "first sale" doctrine codified in 17 U.S.C. 109, that permits the transfer of a lawfully-made copy "without the authority of the copyright owner". Perhaps the interplay between the definition of "propagate" and this section covers it, but it is certainly not made clear and, in fact, misleads one in thinking that the only way to redistribute a lawful copy is to accept the License. noted by hollaar comment 389: Not a correct statement Regarding the text: You may not propagate, modify or sublicense the Program except as expressly provided under this License. In section: gpl3.termination.p0.s1 Submitted by: hollaar comments: As I noted in more detail in my comments on Paragraph 9 [read: 0 as in gpl3.notacontract.p0], this is not an accurate statement. In the United States, 17 U.S.C. 109 ("first sale") and 117 ("computer programs") allow the owner of a lawfully-made copy to modify it in certain circumstances and to redistribute it without permission of the copyright owner. noted by hollaar ----- ***) http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list email@example.com http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss