In article<4C5DAFA2.317C0E8D@web.de>, Alexander
Terekhov<terekhov@web.de> wrote:
ZnU wrote: [...]
nothing particularly strong to favor the opposite position.
You've demonstrated that it's possible to fail to create a
condition, but have advanced no compelling argument that the GPL,
specifically, fails to do so.
Q) I want to create a full blown derivative work (a copy of which I
may want to distribute later) or a copy verbatim (which I may want
to distribute later) of the GPL'd work... what are the conditions
in order to gain the rights to do that?
A) None. The GPL has no conditions precedent.
Please prove me wrong.
I'm not interested in whatever games you want to play with shifting
the burden of proof. In Jacobsen v. Katzer, the Artistic License was
found to establish valid conditions, such that ignoring them while
engaging in actions otherwise not permitted by copyright law was
found to be copyright violation. You either need to explain a)
specifically why the Artistic License created valid conditions but
the GPL did not or b) why I should believe your opinion over that of
a federal court.
Posting a bunch of general information about conditions vs.
covenants, which is what you keep doing, is not especially
interesting when there is a ruling that appears to have addressed the
issue at hand far more directly.