Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL
Lynn Winebarger <email@example.com> writes:
> The way I see it (and IANAL), the GPL (and other free software
> licenses) are copyright licenses that accompany copies of software. If I
> never receive actual ownership of the copy, it's not clear that I would
> receive the accompanying license,
IANAL either, but the way I've always seen it, the GPL is meant to be
understood as the copyright holder's legally binding promise to enter
the contract it describes with *anyone*.
I can not find anywhere in the GPL where it is stated that the
licensee has to own a copy. Og course you need *access* to a copy
if you are to do anything sensible with the rights the license gives
you, but I fail to see the need to own that physical copy.
Henning Makholm "Han råber og skriger, vakler ud på kørebanen og
ind på fortorvet igen, hæver knytnæven mod en bil,
hilser overmådigt venligt på en mor med barn, bryder ud
i sang og stiller sig til sidst op og pisser i en port."