Wei Mingzhi wrote:
> > It is a contract, but one doesn't enter into the GPL contract as long
> > as "copying, distribution, and modification" doesn't require a license.
> > For example, 17 USC 109 allows distribution and 17 USC 117 allows
> > copying and modification (adaptation).
> Read it carefully...
Read again what I wrote. Carefully.
> The 17 USC 117 is about private modifications or private copies, and GPL does
> _not_ actually put any restrictions on that. Read RMS' comments on Apple
> Public Source License for details. And you still cannot release that modified
> version without copyright holder's permission...
Yes, the GPL puts contractual restrictions on distribution of modified
> > Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization
> > of the copyright owner.
> and the 17 USC 109 only talks about _physical_ media of the copyrighted
> material, it makes no sense to say it allows redistributions.
The copyright act says nothing about "redistributions". This word is
not used in the copyright act. And yes, the term distribution is about
material objects (aka "copies"). 17 USC 109 says that an owner of a
copy "lawfully made" is entitled to distribute it (rental and lease
of software aside for a moment) "WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COPYRIGHT
OWNER". The phrase "lawfully made" means that the copy is not infringing,
either because it was made with the permission of the copyright owner
(express or implied license.. implied like in free downloads) or it
falls within one of the exceptions to the copyright owner's