On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 7:09 AM, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 19:15:35 -0400 Arc Riley wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >> > It says that I must offer "an opportunity to receive the Corresponding >> > Source of [my] version by providing access to the Corresponding Source >> > from a network server at no charge". >> > There's no indication that I can delay this opportunity at will, as in >> > "yes, to get source click here, but maybe you have to come back >> > tomorrow". >> >> >> If you setup a system which required a delay, that would be questionable. > > I am not talking about an intentional delay. > > I am talking about something like the following scenario: > the source-hosting server goes down, while I am on vacation on another > continent with intermittent access to Internet. My personal copy of > the source is on my home computer which is down with the plug pulled > off. My vacation has just begun and is going to last, say, five > weeks[1]. On my first Internet connection I receive an e-mail message > of a user (which is also one of the original authors of the network > application I modified!) who informs me that he/she could not download > the source of the modified network application. > > Clearly, I am *not* going to immediately come back to the airport and > take the first flight home, in order to re-upload the source to another > server as soon as possible. > > Am I failing to comply with the license?
First off, are you using the program on the network while on vacation? If not, there wouldn't be a violation, would there? If you are using it, by my reading you haven't violated the license, but cannot modify it further until you come back into compliance. In particular, section 8 states: 8. Termination. You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11). However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation. Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice. Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under this License. If your rights have been terminated and not permanently reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the same material under section 10. --- end quote --- It is arguable that simply running a program does not require a license, although there's obviously a good deal of disagreement on that front. In any case however, if you refrain from use until you restore the hosting, within 30 days, you'd be fine. There's also section 2: 2. Basic Permissions. All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law. --- end quote --- The question here would be, is running a /previously modified/ program "[running[] the unmodified Program"? And/or would executing a legally created modification be allowed under copyright law under any case? (in which case, is the network source requirement enforcable at all?) Finally, it is my understanding that most legal systems usually are lenient on honest mistakes, provided one does their best to repair the mistake as soon as reasonably possible. Note, of course, that I am not a lawyer, and I might be completely wrong on some or all of these points :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
