Re: Question reguarding GNU FDL license

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
> 
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> In mine, the GPL reads:
> >>
> >> (clause 1)
> >>
> >>     You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy,
> >>     and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange
> >>     for a fee.
> >
> > That's not about copying, stupid. It's about a "physical act of
> > transferring a copy"
> 
> Well, it would be pretty foolish to charge someone for copying
> something without actually giving him the copy afterwards...

Uh, retard. Copying and distribution (of copies made by guess 
what? yes, it's called *copying*, stupid) are two different "acts". 
We've already established that the later is not required to be 
gratis (it, in fact, doesn't even need a license because 17 USC 
109 is good enough for authorized copies, including copies of 
derivative works prepared under the GPL license). 

See the light now, GNU genius? Hint: copying is about making 
copies. And "copies" are material objects, other than phonorecords, 
in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later 
developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, 
or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a 
machine or device. 17 USC 101. Repeat: "copies" are material 
objects. The CD is a "copy." "Works" are the things fixed in a 
"copy."  There can be many "works" fixed on a CD, each being a 
"copy." 

[...]
> > And licensing to do what? Idiot.
> 
> To use and redistribute 

Copyright is about copying (liability for distribution of pirated 
copies made by someone else aside for a moment), not use. Use (as
far as it requires copying) of computer programs is permitted 
under 17 USC 117 (this section is called "Limitations on exclusive 
rights: Computer programs"). As for "redistribute", see above, 
retard.

regards,
alexander.