Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 12/21/2010 9:48 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > that breach of a "condition" not to use bots doesn't violate the > > copyright act. Why do you think that a copyleft "condition" not to > > restrict users downstream should be treated any differently? > > Because the court itself said so: > <https://www.eff.org/files/MDY_opinion.pdf> > For instance, ToU ยง 4(D) forbids creation of derivative works
Copyleft doesn't forbid creation of derivative works. You can create derivative works from copylefted works all you want. You can also copy verbatim. Copyleft does impose several WOW ToU-like covenants (with covenants itself having really nothing to do with the rights under 17 USC 106) for the case of subsequent distribution of copies of derivative works (ans/or copies verbatim). The distribution of copies made under the GPL (whether verbatim or with modifications) itself falls under 17 USC 109 and hence isn't a copyright infringement by definition of 17 USC 109. Go read it, silly. 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 protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
