Re: The Final Word: 17 USC 101
Message ID: 177661
Posted By: edgarmoon
Posted On: 2004-09-08 10:01:00
Subject: Re: The Final Word: 17 USC 101
Recs: 3
Jerekhov is not wrong here (but he still is not right). You do not have to agree to the gpl to redistribute, you only have to agree to redistribute modified code. Herekhov can download as many copies of gpl'd software, give them out or sell them, and he does not have to agree to the GPL. This is written in the gpl. This is why his argument is so baked, he doesn't need 109 to help him, he's already been given that permission.
However, he argues he can remove the GPL claims from that software and then redistribute them. Doing so would modify the program, therefore he no longer has an exact copy, therefore sect 109 does not apply. He is an idiot, he is trying to confuse people. Think of him as SCO arguing a case in court, they are wrong, everyone knows they are wrong, but they get magical points for how long they can argue before the case is dismissed and how many people they can confuse the issues with.
------------------------------------------------------------
The text of this Yahoo Message Board post has been licensed for
copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board user "edgarmoon"
under the following license:
License: CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0
------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: edgarmoon
Posted On: 2004-09-08 10:01:00
Subject: Re: The Final Word: 17 USC 101
Recs: 3
Jerekhov is not wrong here (but he still is not right). You do not have to agree to the gpl to redistribute, you only have to agree to redistribute modified code. Herekhov can download as many copies of gpl'd software, give them out or sell them, and he does not have to agree to the GPL. This is written in the gpl. This is why his argument is so baked, he doesn't need 109 to help him, he's already been given that permission.
However, he argues he can remove the GPL claims from that software and then redistribute them. Doing so would modify the program, therefore he no longer has an exact copy, therefore sect 109 does not apply. He is an idiot, he is trying to confuse people. Think of him as SCO arguing a case in court, they are wrong, everyone knows they are wrong, but they get magical points for how long they can argue before the case is dismissed and how many people they can confuse the issues with.
------------------------------------------------------------
The text of this Yahoo Message Board post has been licensed for
copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board user "edgarmoon"
under the following license:
License: CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0
------------------------------------------------------------