In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> You can claim either agreement or non-agreement with the conditions. > >> Your choice. In the latter case, you had no permission to copy in the > >> first place. > > > > Ah, but note that in my hypothetical, when I made the copies, I had no > > intention of distributing them. I was making them for my own use, and > > did use all of them. Thus, at the time they were made, they were > > "lawfully made". > > If I let go of a brick above your head with the firm intention to catch > it again, and then I decide otherwise, that's fine? Because there is no > duty for people to catch bricks?
Poor analogy. Letting go of a brick above my head, with the intention to catch it (and even if you in fact did catch it, so I come to no harm), would still be assault. ... > > Can that later act retroactively change the creation of the copies > > from lawful to unlawful? > > You stop heeding your part of the deal and you stop having your rights. > Simple as that. But if the copy was lawful, I don't *need* any GPL rights in order to distribute it, so the question remains: is whether or not a copy is lawfully made determined at the time the copy is made, or can it depend on later events? -- --Tim Smith _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
