ZnU <[email protected]> writes: > In article <[email protected]>, David Kastrup <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> To have the GPL evaluated on "its merits", the defendant has to state >> that he considers being in compliance with the GPL. Up to now, none >> of the defendants put forward that theory. So there is no point for >> the judge to go to the GPL in detail when the defendant does not >> claim use of the license: its acceptance is quite voluntary. If the >> defendant did not accept it, the case is not about the GPL or its >> merits. > > I'm not sure I understand this. If you reject the GPL, doesn't > downloading a copy of a Linux distro (for instance) become copyright > violation?
Sure. There is a reason most of these cases settle once judge or legal counsel has pointed this out to the defendant. > The GPL is the only thing authorizing you to make that copy. No, it is the only thing offering such authorization _a priori_ to any interested party. Most certainly other agreements or authorizations may be put in effect. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
