Raul Miller writes: > > Ignoring for the moment that copyleft by necessity goes beyond what is > > governed by copyright law, where in the scenario that I described does > > copyright law no longer apply to dealing with the work? > > I disagree with your assertion that copyleft goes beyond what is governed > by copyright law. Copyleft is a set of copyright limitations. People who > do not satisfy the requirements of a copyleft license aren't granted the > right to generate copies on the works that have those requirements.
Copyright law does not reserve the right to determine a license for derivative works; it just reserves the right to authorize their creation. Copyleft works by conditioning that authorization on the derivative work(s) being licensed under certain terms. Similarly, the GFDL works by conditioning the authorization to copy a work on not using technical measures to restrict the reading or further copying of the copies. > Copyright laws apply in those circumstances because copies of a > copyrighted work are being generated. > > Copyright laws do not apply when there are no copies being generated > and where no copy rights are being asserted. Obviously not, but someone makes a copy when I download a file from a Debian archive mirror to my hard drive, and in the scenario I described (I somehow have a copy; I make another copy; I chmod the second copy) I would generate a copy. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
