loophole in the GPL?
jcowan at reutershealth.com
Thu Mar 30 19:52:38 UTC 2000
Justin Wells wrote:
> The GPL says that if I "distribute" copies then I must provide source. I,
> however, maintain that I am doing no such thing--I am *selling* copies,
> transfering my ownership of that copy to someone else, not distributing
The term "distribute" must be understood in the sense in which it is
used in the Copyright Act. The term is not actually defined there, but
is used thus: "distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work
to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or
lending". So selling copies is a type, indeed the primary type, of distribution.
This argument also fails the "laugh test"; if your argument makes the
judge laugh (derisively), don't expect a decision in your favor.
"How many legs does a dog have, if you call its tail a leg?"
"Four. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one."
Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
More information about the License-discuss