Re: You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL [was: Re: libkrb53 - odd license term]
Scripsit Glenn Maynard <email@example.com>
> If I make photocopies of a book and put them on a shelf with a "Free!"
> sign, and you then take a copy, I'm the one who made the copy available,
> and the one needing permission from the copyright holder.
The thing that needs permission is not making the copy *available*;
it's making the copy at all in the first place.
> It don't see how it's any different if I set up a printer with a
> button saying "Push for free book!". "I didn't actually make the
> copy; he's the one who pushed the button!" isn't something I'd try
> in court.
No, not if you were accused of contributory infringement by making it
too easy for third parties to make copies of a specific work that they
are not allowed to make copies of.
The fact that *you* are in trouble, however, does not in itself stop
the person pushing the button from being in trouble *too* if he knew
that said button would cause the machine to manufacture a copy that he
did not have any right to manufacture.
I'll have to retract my assertation that one has to accept the GPL
before downloading a work covered by it. In most jurisdictions that I
know of, people by default have the right to create copies of most
copyrighted works for their own personal use, even without permission
from the copyright holder. This is what gets the downloader and the
button-pusher off the hook, rather than a fiction that they are not
really creating copies.
Henning Makholm "Hør, hvad er det egentlig
der ikke kan blive ved med at gå?"