4 ms·

yes! you're getting directly at what I'm trying to explain. you need a license to have a copy in the first place, and you need a copy to cross out words, so ye

yes! you're getting directly at what I'm trying to explain. you need a license to have a copy in the first place, and you need a copy to cross out words, so yes, you need a license to cross out words. You don't need a special extra license, but you need a licensed copy or you are in violation of the copyright. So this is the "trick" in copyright law that the GPL uses. It's granting you the have-your-one-copy-license if you agree to the terms. After that point, violations on your part do not void the "terms of the license", they void your license to have a copy in the first place. the only person who does not need a license to have a copy is the original author, so if you buy a copy of a book you wrote, you (alone) don't own a licensed copy, but you do own the copyright on the copyrighted copy that you bought.

Karellen 3y ago
> you need a license to have a copy in the first place I'm pretty sure you need a license to make a copy. When you buy a book from a bookshop, you don't need a license to own it. A license was needed to make it, but the publisher got that from the author when the author agreed for the publisher to publish the book. After that the first-sale doctrine kicks in. You can resell books you own, or scribble in them, or set them on fire, or rent them out, and there's nothing the copyright holder can do. They authorised for that copy to be made, what happens next is up to the owner of that copy... with the exception of the right to make another copy from that copy. That's still reserved for the copyright holder. Hence, copy-right. > so yes, you need a license to cross out words. Sorry, but that's absurd.
- fsckboy 3y ago
  at this point the discussion is devolving to a semantics debate, and it may not even be the case that the word license has such specific definition, hence why courts are required to adjudicate and the outcome of such cases cannot be predicted. However, I'm pretty sure my interpretation is more accurate. Here, quoting from the GPL itself: "You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force." This is referring to a copy that you have already made, and they are pointing out that you have a license to that copy, and your license to that copy could go out of force. >8. Termination. You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License again we see, it's not that the license's job was done after the copy was made, but that the license on an ongoing basis is what allows you to maintain your rights to the copy. The first sale doctrine isn't a separate doctrine than copyright and license law, it is a subset, and applies to you transferring your licensed copy to a new person. Were it not for that, you license would not transfer. >Sorry, but that's absurd. no, it's not absurd that if A requires B, and B requires C, that implies that A requires C, it's a fundamental principle of mathematics/logic, modus ponens or something.

Karellen 3y ago

> you need a license to have a copy in the first place I'm pretty sure you need a license to make a copy. When you buy a book from a bookshop, you don't need a license to own it. A license was needed to make it, but the publisher got that from the author when the author agreed for the publisher to publish the book. After that the first-sale doctrine kicks in. You can resell books you own, or scribble in them, or set them on fire, or rent them out, and there's nothing the copyright holder can do. They authorised for that copy to be made, what happens next is up to the owner of that copy... with the exception of the right to make another copy from that copy. That's still reserved for the copyright holder. Hence, copy-right. > so yes, you need a license to cross out words. Sorry, but that's absurd.

fsckboy 3y ago
at this point the discussion is devolving to a semantics debate, and it may not even be the case that the word license has such specific definition, hence why courts are required to adjudicate and the outcome of such cases cannot be predicted. However, I'm pretty sure my interpretation is more accurate. Here, quoting from the GPL itself: "You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force." This is referring to a copy that you have already made, and they are pointing out that you have a license to that copy, and your license to that copy could go out of force. >8. Termination. You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License again we see, it's not that the license's job was done after the copy was made, but that the license on an ongoing basis is what allows you to maintain your rights to the copy. The first sale doctrine isn't a separate doctrine than copyright and license law, it is a subset, and applies to you transferring your licensed copy to a new person. Were it not for that, you license would not transfer. >Sorry, but that's absurd. no, it's not absurd that if A requires B, and B requires C, that implies that A requires C, it's a fundamental principle of mathematics/logic, modus ponens or something.