On 2/26/2010 4:28 PM, RJack wrote:
It seems that everyone in the World except a few GNUtians understand
that "licensing" (the act of contract formation) doesn't require the
copying and distribution of source code.
Everyone understands that granting a license doesn't
require anything except stating the terms of it.
The act of "granting the license" does *not* involve copying and
distribution of source code
Correct.
The unlicensed use in these cases is copying and distribution, exactly
as specified in 17 USC 106.
Bull. The unlicensed use you claim is failure to license (form a contract).
In all of these cases, companies copied and distributed GPL-
covered code without adhering to the conditions of the GPL.
This made such copying and distribution an infringing use.
It's not a "condition" unless it involves the copying and distribution
of the source code. Contract formation (licensing) is a legal operation
and does not utilize source code exclusive rights.
The infringing use was copying and distribution.
You appear seriously confused.
Ever see a copyright license written in computer source code?
> If you have please show me said claimed license.
All GPL-covered code includes the GPL by reference to a file
which accompanies the source code, for brevity.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
