On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Michael Orlitzky <m...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 08/19/2015 09:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Michael Orlitzky <m...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> >>> Anything you can do without the kernel source code is legal, sure. But >>> we're talking about... >>> >>> 1. Downloading the kernel source (making a copy of) it. >> >> You're receiving a copy of it. You don't need a license to download >> something. You'll notice that even the RIAA doesn't sue people who >> download music - they sue people who UPLOAD it. They are on far more >> solid legal ground doing the latter. > > Uhhhhhhhhhh > >> Please cite a law that says you're not allowed to receive a copy of a >> copyrighted work without a license. > > ยง 106 . Exclusive rights in copyrighted works > > Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this > title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: > > (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies
When you download software you receive a copy. You start out with zero works. Somebody sends you a copy of that work. You write it to disk. You end up with the same number of copies as you were given. Cite a court case that upholds a claim otherwise? In any case, the Linux kernel authors have already given people permission to make unmodified copies of the kernel, which is all that is happening in step 1. So, this is not an essential element of my argument. -- Rich
