From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751412AbWDNS5z (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:57:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751414AbWDNS5z (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:57:55 -0400 Received: from mail1.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.168]:6924 "EHLO mail1.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751412AbWDNS5y (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:57:54 -0400 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: RE: GPL issues Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:56:55 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <20060414175018.GD23222@vasa.acc.umu.se> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 Importance: Normal X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:53:06 -0700 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 206.171.168.138 X-Return-Path: davids@webmaster.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:53:07 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Ahhh, but you're missing the whole point of the GPL. The GPL is > not really a normal license, it's a copyright license. Basically, > copyright law doesn't allow you to do *anything* with someone elses > work without permission. The GPL grants you such rights. > However, in exchange for this, you agree to follow the license when > redistributing your software that you built against the GPL:ed > software. Bluntly, you're just completely wrong. If this were so, I could put up a billboard with a poem and then sue everyone who read it. You should read http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html Notice, for example, that the rights granted under copyright do *not* include the right to restrict the *use* of a work. Far from copyright law starting out with the premise that you can do nothing with a work, it basically restricts copying or distribution of a work and the production of works based on that work other than what's necessary for ordinary use. Specifically, copyright does not protect ordinary use. If you buy a CD, you get the right to use that CD simply by virtue of the fact that you lawfully possess a lawfully made of the music on that CD. DS