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

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Q: Am I bound by the GPL, by merely downloading, without affirmatively
> > accepting the GPL, yes or no?
>
> No.
>
> > Suppose that right now I've made a hardcover copy of a work
> > affirmatively made available to me (I've affirmatively accepted the
> > license contract) under the license to make only paperback copies.
> >
> > Q: Am I violating the scope of the license by making hardcover copies
> > instead of (agreed) paperbacks only?
>
> Yes.
>
> > What does this have to do with the GPL, Hyman?
>
> You can't make copies of GPLed code and convey those copies
> to others unless you do so under the terms of the GPL. You
> may be able to invoke a first sale claim if you convey a
> copy that you have downloaded from a site that was distributing
> the code properly. You may even be able to invoke the first
> sale claim if you do this over and over. You cannot do this by
> making your own copies from the downloaded file.
Give it a rest Hymen -- you're starting to falter. You're starting
to reason with all the clarity of a bottle of ink.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)