Re: GPL and other licences

[Alexander Terekhov]

GNUtian logic in action.

GNUtian Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 22:00 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 19:19 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > > You ask how a copy would be acquired without accepting the GPL.
> > >
> > > Irrelevant. You still don't have the right to make copies and distribute
> >
> > The right to distribute lawfully made copies (without authority of the
> 
> Irrelevant. You're still confusing _your_copy_ with
> _copies_of_your_copy_

Ok. Think of two copies. Try to understand that I've downloaded both 
copies. Downloaded two times. And I didn't click on any "I agree". 
As for additional copies of these two copies (apart from 17 USC 117) 
that I can as well make pursuant to the GPL, they also fall under 17 
USC 109 because they are authorized and only contractual covenant
(restriction) can interfere with my right to distribute those copies 
as I see fit. Everyone who is neither blind nor an idiot knows for 
certain that the GPL is a *LICENSE NOT A CONTRACT* -- Richard 
Stallman has clarified that fact at least a hundred times. 

> 
> And since it's not for lack of information, I can only assume that it's
> either for lack of English Comprehension, because otherwise it would
> have to be malice.

Hey rms@1407.org, you are as "malice" as Mini Me of Doctor Evil 
(except that you are a Mini Me of RMS). Translation: you both are
so amusingly insane that it is really fascinating.

regards,
alexander.