Remember that the point Alfred was making is that because the
   software is licensed under the GPL, he is allowed to make a copy
   _even_ if the CD is not his property and he was acting as an agent
   of licensee/owner of the copy. To him, the license is a magical
   property attached to the software, and not an agreement between
   licensor and licensee.

It depends on the license.  The GPL gives an explicity right for this,
some other licenses may not.  If I'm in the legal possession of GPLed
software, maybe because my employer gave me an CD to use and install
that specific program, then I'm also allowed to redistribute it.  The
employeer cannot state that I cannot do this, since the GPL gives me
this right.

   I think that employees do not have any rights to their employer's
   property, whatever the conditions were under which it was acquired.

Even if the employer sold that property to the employee?

   The same would apply to the files on my computer if you were to
   borrow it.  None of the software on that machine is a "copy that
   you rightfully acquired", and hence you have no right to copy it,
   whatever its license.

I borrowed the computer, not the files.  So yes, in this particular
circumstance, this is correct.  One could compare it to borrowing a
car, and then making a claim to the content in the car, like the
fluffy teddy bear.  You were allowed to borrow the car, but not the
teddy bear.

(Note that my example was different, and more akin to person A giving
a gratis copy of a CD to person B; David AFAIK claims that person A
can still dictate what person B is allowed to do with the content.  I
claim that David is wrong)

Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to