Re: The Final Word: 17 USC 101
Message ID: 177770
Posted By: laughing_vergil
Posted On: 2004-09-08 13:24:00
Subject: Re: The Final Word: 17 USC 101
Recs: 7
As always, terekhov fails his intelligence roll.
Terekhov's position can only seem reasonable as long as you separate the making of GPL-authorized derivitive works from the concept of accepting the GPL as a license. Unfortunately for terekhov's theories (and also for his blood pressure - he plonked me for bringing up questions he could not or would not answer), once you make the derivitive work, you have indicated your acceptance of the GPL, since otherwise you have no legal right to make the derivitive work, or even unaltered copies of the original (The FSF's opinion to the contrary, and in accord with terekhov's position in other areas, the law controls, not the opinion of the FSF, and the law says that you cannot make copies except for certain, strictly limit exceptions specified in 17 USC).
So, you either accept the GPL *as a whole*, and agree to follow its strictures to get the enhanced permissions granted by it... or you are making illegal derivitive works and / or copies.
And, as with most licenses, violation of one of the tenets of the license can result in the revocation of the entire license, thus the permission to make derivitive works or copies, thus the entire scheme. It is even likely that the copies that were made, legal when they were made, become illegal copies upon the revocation of GPL permissions (That decision would be up to a court).
Finally, someone was on a correct path when discussing physical copies and works. First Sale rights only hold with physical copies, not with electronically distributed copies. The work you download is a legal copy on your hard drive, but to sell it through First Sale rights, you must send it on its physical media -- no electronic distribution allowed.
Terekhov really has the Bull Troll thing down pat. Too bad that there are not enough people who don't realize that he *is* a troll now. He is reduced to coming to the SCOX board, with only minimal relevance to his arguments, instead of trolling in the more relevant groups.
L.V.
P.S.: Terekhov talks about 'veggies' - at least that's better than being a Terekhovie ;)
------------------------------------------------------------
The text of this Yahoo Message Board post has been licensed for
copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board user
"laughing_vergil" under the following license:
License: CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0
------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: laughing_vergil
Posted On: 2004-09-08 13:24:00
Subject: Re: The Final Word: 17 USC 101
Recs: 7
As always, terekhov fails his intelligence roll.
Terekhov's position can only seem reasonable as long as you separate the making of GPL-authorized derivitive works from the concept of accepting the GPL as a license. Unfortunately for terekhov's theories (and also for his blood pressure - he plonked me for bringing up questions he could not or would not answer), once you make the derivitive work, you have indicated your acceptance of the GPL, since otherwise you have no legal right to make the derivitive work, or even unaltered copies of the original (The FSF's opinion to the contrary, and in accord with terekhov's position in other areas, the law controls, not the opinion of the FSF, and the law says that you cannot make copies except for certain, strictly limit exceptions specified in 17 USC).
So, you either accept the GPL *as a whole*, and agree to follow its strictures to get the enhanced permissions granted by it... or you are making illegal derivitive works and / or copies.
And, as with most licenses, violation of one of the tenets of the license can result in the revocation of the entire license, thus the permission to make derivitive works or copies, thus the entire scheme. It is even likely that the copies that were made, legal when they were made, become illegal copies upon the revocation of GPL permissions (That decision would be up to a court).
Finally, someone was on a correct path when discussing physical copies and works. First Sale rights only hold with physical copies, not with electronically distributed copies. The work you download is a legal copy on your hard drive, but to sell it through First Sale rights, you must send it on its physical media -- no electronic distribution allowed.
Terekhov really has the Bull Troll thing down pat. Too bad that there are not enough people who don't realize that he *is* a troll now. He is reduced to coming to the SCOX board, with only minimal relevance to his arguments, instead of trolling in the more relevant groups.
L.V.
P.S.: Terekhov talks about 'veggies' - at least that's better than being a Terekhovie ;)
------------------------------------------------------------
The text of this Yahoo Message Board post has been licensed for
copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board user
"laughing_vergil" under the following license:
License: CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0
------------------------------------------------------------