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

[Hyman Rosen]

Rjack wrote:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
> > Fortunately, the GPL does not bind any third parties.
> Thank God you finally admit this. Thank you. You just shot the ass
> out from under the theory of "downstream" licensing.

Licensing isn't binding on anyone. People who receive copies
of GPLed sources and wish to convey further copies or derived
works may do so under terms of the GPL. The copyright holders
grant this license to all such people. If they do not wish to
accept the terms of the GPL for this, then they are limited by
whatever permissions pure copyright law grants.

> > Anyone who does more either implicitly accepts the GPL, or
> > implicitly violates copyright law.
>
> Anyone who explicitly or implicitly accepts the voidable
> terms contained in the GPL is a fool since illegal terms
> are unenforceable.

The terms of the GPL are both legal and enforceable. Anyone
who conveys copies of covered works without complying with
the license is in violation of copyright and can be liable
both civilly and criminally.