Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/01-07482.PDF
> > ... From the user's vantage point, SmartDownload could be analogized 
> > to a free neighborhood newspaper, readily obtained from a sidewalk box 
> > or supermarket counter without any exchange with a seller or vender.
>
> I'm glad you made the free paper analogy. What do you imagine the
> reaction of the courts would be if someone showed up at the box
> and took all the papers and started reselling them for pulp?
>
>  > Note that the Copyright Act doesn't define a (compound) right to
>  > "copy and convey"
>
> In the case of downloading GPLed software, it's usually the case
> that the user initiates the download, whereas in the Netscape case
> it was the software itself initiating the download. But it may be
> the case that you're right, and that you can first-sale distribute
> a downloaded copy.


> You would still need to separately download each
> copy that you wanted to distribute, and you would have to download
> it directly to the distribution medium.

Why? You don't like the GPL Hymen?

GPL sec. 1:

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any 
warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of 
this License along with the Program.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)