One core principle in open source licenses is that you are not
required to agree to the license in order to download or run copies.
The GPL makes this explicit: "You are not required to accept this
License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program." This is
really important. I can download and run every bit of open source
software in existence without ever agreeing to a single license.

Downloading a thing you make available doesn't give me the right to
distribute it -- copyright law itself is sufficient to limit that. If
you want to impose _additional restrictions_ on a person for stuff
they download from you, that actually requires proactive agreement
from the user to those restrictions at the time they download the
thing.

I’m not saying this is wrong in all jurisdictions, but it is definitely not correct in at least some of them…

Specifically, per the Czech copyright law, an act of downloading some copyrighted work is restricted by copyright, as it is (obviously?) copying (“reproduction”) of the work, which is (obviously?) covered by copyright.

There is an exception by which you are specifically allowed to copy some copyrighted works “for personal needs by a natural person without seeking to achieve direct or indirect economic benefit” but this exception does not apply to computer programs and electronic databases. Downloading computer programs and electronic databases (and downloading for purposes outside the listed exception) requires an express consent of the copyright holder, i.e. a license. In other words, you _cannot_ download a GPL program without agreeing to the GPL (which, as you wrote, allows that to anyone without further conditions, so that’s not a problem as far as downloading and running the program goes).

-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]