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 c

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.