Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > 17 USC 106 (3) lists four ways for a copy to be distributed. [...]
If you think 17 USC limits the means of distribution of a copyrighted work's instance to only four, and somehow precludes for software anything other that sale or lease, then I think you have an extremely active imagination. _Obviously_ the Copyright Act in no wise addresses, let alone restricts, the ways in which works may be distributed. Be serious. > In such a case, the licensor has no more rights than granted to him by > copyright law. Well, duh. > If there is no privity, there can be no contract, therefore the > rights granted are granted by statute. That is a non-sequitur, and you are begging the question: Open-source licences such as GPLv2 and the BSD licence are _founded_ in the assumption that licensors may grant rights above and beyond the statutory ones, with attached conditions. > Perhaps I'm missing some key point, but I don't see how we can use > such software save under a valid license or leasing agreement persuant > to section 106 (3) and following the legal forms of a lease. Yes, you are indeed missing a key point. Sorry, but this has become tedious. -- Cheers, kill -9 them all. Rick Moen Let init sort it out. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
