On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 06:13:53PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 02:46:52PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Why? The plain-English meaning of the phrase "accompanies the > > executable" would imply no such thing, and would in fact appear to be > > contrary to the intent of this part of the license. > Under copyright law, the precise details of how the copy arrives doesn't > matter. What matters is that the copy arrives. If many people are > getting copies of some work then that's a copyright issue. > If more than one person is involved in making those copies the individuals > who contributed towards making those copies can still be nailed for > contributory infringement. > If the law excused cases where some of the bits arrived on a different > cdrom or a on different day, or encoding using a different algorithm or > any such thing if for some systematic reason that's all sorted out for the > user, then all you'd have to do is break any work down into individual > bits (or small groups of them, as fair use allows), transmit those bits > separately (using whatever this delivery mechanism is, that gets around > copyright) and presto -- that work is no longer protected by copyright. Huh? There is no copyright infringement here because *the GPL explicitly allows this form of distribution*. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature