On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 10:43, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 02:08:26AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > You're ignoring 2 itself: > > > > > 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any > > > portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy > > > and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of > > > Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these > > > conditions:[4] > > > > Which is ambiguous in itself. It can either mean > > > > You may modify provided blah, AND you may copy provided blah. > > > > or > > > > You may [modify and then copy] provided blah. > > > > Such are the wonders of natural language. > > I'd like to go on record as requesting that the FSF clarify this in > future versions of the GNU GPL, such that only distribution of > modifications are limited by the license, not modification in and of > itself.
I do not think this is going to happen, especially given AGPL's (2)(d). Indeed, in the current version, it is *perfectly clear* that mere modification triggers (2)(a) and (2)(c). If it did not, why would (2)(b) specifically mention distribution? > Imposing constraints on simple modification[1] is of > questionable utility given the difficulty of enforcement, Enforcement should not be too hard. Most violation reports I get are from users of the programs, and some are from employees of violating companies. > to say nothing > of potential clashes with the principles of Fair Use, I don't see a conflict here. If it happens that removal of (2)(c) and (2)(d) stuff in the absence of any copying or distribution is considered fair use, then those sections won't hold. But I don't think it is, given Texaco. > and the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of privacy rights[2]. If the plain language of Article 1, Section 8 doesn't restrict the term of copyright, what makes you think that the ambiguity of Amendment 9 will restrict its scope? And again, Texaco was private too. If you find me a case (and I couldn't find one either way), then we'll talk about the Constitution and Fair Use. > Mr. Turner, can you pass this along to the appropriate people? I've already expressed to people here that Debian-legal has serious reservations about (2)(c) and (2)(d). Do you want me to tell Eben that you think section 2, in the absence of distribution, is unenforcable? I doubt that he would agree with you, and you are welcome to -- -Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668 "On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock." -Thomas Jefferson
