Re: "GPL requirement could have a chilling effect on derivative distros"

[Stefaan A Eeckels]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 18:22:32 +0200 (CEST)
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org> wrote:

Alfred, please don't send me copies of messages that are also sent to
the group. Unless you mark the post "Posted and Mailed" or suchlike,
it's against netiquette.

>    What is relevant is first sale. That is, the owner of a lawful
> copy has the right to sell that copy. Thus, the sale can take place
> without accepting the license. 
> 
> Are you sure?

Yes. If you buy a book, you can sell your copy. That is what first sale
is about - the copyright holder can control copying,  but once a copy
has been sold (lawfully acquired), the copyright holder cannot control
what is done with that copy.

> | 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
> |    signed it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to modify
> |    or distribute the Program or its derivative works.  These actions
> |    are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.
> |    Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work
> |    based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this
> |    License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying,
> |    distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
> 
> Selling that copy is distribution AFAIU, the same goes for the
> examples you have.

Selling the original copy is specifically allowed by the Copyright
Statutes and is not distributing the work. Making copies and
distributing (selling, handing out) those is not allowed and this is
where the GPL comes into play.

Take care,

-- 
Stefaan A Eeckels
-- 
You know, it is almost always the case in the real world that something
is "fair" when you like it and "unfair" when you don't.
                                  -- Jeffrey Siegal in gnu.misc.discuss