Re: Distributing GPL software.
On 12 Jan 2006 12:32:41 -0500, Michael Poole <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov writes:
> > On 12 Jan 2006 11:53:56 -0500, Michael Poole <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > Alexander Terekhov writes:
> > >
> > > > On 1/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > Download the binary and the *corresponding* source code. While
> > > > > distributing only the binary. put on the CD, a file saying that the
> > > > > source code to every binary on the CD is available from you to the
> > > > > person you gave the cd. (``Sources are available from <address>''
> > > > > will do). Now, if somebody says that you are doing commercial
> > > > > distribution, you can comply by giving sources to the persons who
> > > > > contact you at the <address>. (you now comply with 3(b) ).
> > > >
> > > > Hey Carrera, just ignore what the GNUtians say. If somebody says
> > > > that you must give sources "or else", reply "17 USC 109, piss off".
> > >
> > > Here is a suggestion of how you can put your bizarre legal theory to
> > > the test:
> > >
> > > 1) Buy a copy of relatively pricey commercial software.
> > Nah. I prefer something for free. Several moons ago when I was challenged
> > by another GNUtian, I've "bought" (for USD 0) winxp64 download from
> > Microsoft and resold it on a CD for EURO 6.50 on ebay.de. Item 7133325141.
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2004-12/msg00095.html
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2005-03/msg00084.html
> > And I'm still not in prison. How come?
> You skipped step #5 in my suggested process,
That's because your suggested process is not what I suggest to Carrera.
Yeah, I know that it's close to impossible for a GNUtian to grok "first sale".