Re: scope of linux in the corporates...


Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

"David Schwartz" <davids@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Please just reconcile this one quote:

Easy: You are *not* reading it correctly.

Which am I not reading correctly? The two excerpts are in direct
contradiction.

We can start with the assumption the Eben Moglen knows what it says
and what it means. Any contradiction between what he says and what
you or I think it means indicates an error on our part. In this
case, that is *you*.

No, the error is on your part. Eben Moglen does not mean what you think
he means. If he did, there would be the direct contradiction I cited.

Eben Moglen, in all of those quotes, is giving informal, imprecise
summary information. You cannot derive legal conclusions about edge
cases from what he's saying.

Bull***. He is talking about court cases, about enforcing the
GPL, and about what the courts are doing when the GPL is enforced.

Then explain why he says you don't need to accept the GPL to modify a
covered work and the GPL specifically says you do.

The terms "copying" and "distributing" have precise legal meanings that
determine what you do and don't need the copyright holder's permission
to do, and hence when you have to agree with the terms.

Yes, and *you* clearly do not have a clue.

I certainly do. You are the one who sometimes uses "distribute" to mean
the right reserved under copyright and sometimes uses it to mean
transferring a lawfully-made copy.

You are using them by their common English meanings and assuming from
that that you can tell when the GPL does and doesn't apply. You just
can't do that.

Eben Moglen can. Which is why I quoted him. Obviously you do
not have a clue.

Eben Moglen is using their common English meanings, the GPL is using
them in their legal sense. That is why the two appear to conflict and
why you are misreading Moglen and the GPL.

You must accompany every copy with source code (or an offer for it) --
always.

When I copy it from my desktop to my laptop??? You are silly.

You just switched from the legal meaning of copying to the common sense
meaning. You can't do that. You either have to stick to one or the
other.

Copying from your desktop to your laptop may or may not be copying in
the copyright sense. But even if it is, I think you could argue that
the same source code can "accompany" both copies.

That's the gist of what the GPL says. You must accept the GPL
to create a derivative work in the first place (assuming that doing so
is not fair use), no matter what Eben Moglen says.

You do realize who Eben Moglen is, right?

Absolutely.

Nobody should miss who you are: a confused guy who does not
understand the GPL.

No, you are confused. You are misreading Moglen and the GPL. Moglen
does not mean to say that you can modify a GPL'd work without accepting
the GPL. He simply means that you must accept it, but it imposes no
requirements on you so long as you don't transfer the copy to anyone.
(Whether or not that transfer legally qualifies as distribution.)

To be clear, transferring a file electronically *is* copying, but it is
*not* distribution. Legally, distribution must be of *a* copy, and
downloading or P2P sharing results in a *new* copy at the recipient. It
is copying but not distribution. If it is distribution, which or what
copy is distributed?

DS

.

Quantcast