This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc etc.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 11:08 AM Subject: Re: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > The linking issue is a whole other matter. I am saying there that an > > > end-user has, subject to and in compliance with the GPL license terms, a > > > wide right to modify on the end-user's computer. > > > > I believe you're talking about fair use. > > > > Does fair use apply when 10000 users wind up with identical unlicensed > > copies of the same copyrighted work? Actually I did not have "fair use" particularly in mind. Rather, I was focused on this language from the GPL: "2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program" Why rely on the uncertain doctrine of "fair use" when the GPL provides an explicit permission. Note: many of the "harmful" obligations in the GPL trigger only on distribution; remember the example I am talking about does not involve distribution of a derived work of a GPL program rather involves combining a GPL program (library) and a non-GPL program on an end-user's computer > > No, he is not talking about "fair use". He is, I think, talking about > two things: > > (1) The idea that compiling and linking a program is not restricted by > copyright; you don't need special permission to compile and link a > program once you have obtained a copy of it. Compiling and linking > does involve making a local copy, but this is an unavoidable part of > using the program and you are not distributing it. Not everyone agrees > with this idea, but most people do, I think. You can compare this with > copying music from CD to tape for the purpose of listening to it in > places where you don't have a CD player, something which has been > looked at and allowed by a court in some country, IIRC. You can also > compare with the case of someone with poor eyesight who has to > photographically enlarge a printed text in order to read it, or > reading a text onto tape for the benefit of a blind person who has a > copy of the printed text. Also, there's web caching ... We'll I am assuming compiling and linking involves one or both of creating a copy and creating a derivative work. So in the absence of a permission or exception in the law that's copyright infringement (no distribution is required to trigger infringement; copying and/or creating a derivative work is sufficient). In the U.S., the fair use doctrine may get you to non-infringement or section 117 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html). In other countries, it could be a whole different story - most countries have a very narrow concept of "fair use" / "fair dealing" and provide no similar exception as section 117 of the U.S. Copyright Act. > > (2) The way the GPL seems to support this idea: > > Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not > covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of > running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program > is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the > Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). > Whether that is true depends on what the Program does. > > (That quotation from the GPL was "fair use", by the way. I quoted a > small part of the work for the purpose of talking about it.) > > Edmund > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
