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:
> > 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.
> However, the law only gives you the right to sell and *dispose* the
> work, e.g. selling a book. The law was not originally designed with
> software in mind. So if you do not accept the GPL, then you can give a
> copy of the program to me, but you will have to delete all of your own
Brrr. That's yet another GNU law, I suppose.
> This discussion is quite irrelevant - Alexander, if you have any
> problems with the GPL that you want to be fixed, ask for them to be
> discussed at the GPL3 conference. That's what it's for.
The whole process is a PR thing and a tool for advancing rather silly
political agenda. Nothing more.