Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 1/8/06, Alexander Terekhov <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > <sarcasm>That would be *really* easy to do.</sarcasm> To relicense the
> > > entire GPL codebase would mean every contributor to every GPL project
> > > would have to agree, possibly in writing. There are thousands, maybe
> > > millions of them.
> > If they don't mind quasi public domain... which is even better as far as
> > I'm concerned.
> > >
> > > And FSF is really likely to want to retire the GPL. Just note that the
> > > sections of the copyright act you have quoted allow you to copy for
> > > lawful purposes, and to sell your original copy *on the condition that
> > > you dispose of it*.
> > What "original copy" and "the condition" are you talking about? In order
> > to sell/dispose/distribute (as I see fit), I only have to be "the owner
> > of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made" under copyright law.
> > 17 USC 109. A copy can be "lawfully made" if it is made by the copyright
> > owner, made with the authorization of the copyright owner (explicit or
> And that's what the GPL gives you.
Unrestricted downloads of the GPL'd stuff aside for a moment, the GPL
gives me a copy or two. Thank you. The distribution of those copies (as
I see fit) is made under 17 USC 109, not the GPL. Being not a contract
(according to the FSF), the GPL is irrelevant at the time of distribution.