Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You got it wrong. By giving you his property (the lawful copy of the > software) for the purposes of your job, you have not lawfully acquired > (become owner) of a copy, and hence you have no rights. The fact that > you have access to the copy (you hold the CD your employer handed you > for the purposes of installing it on one of their computers, which you > are allowed to use but do not own) does not mean that you are the owner > of that copy, and it is the ownership of that copy (on whatever medium) > that gives you certain rights. Now ownership, no rights.
Why do you have to be the 'owner' of the copy? Consider, for a moment, a different scenario. You borrow from a library a book containing a work which has passed into the public domain. Although you have not become the 'owner' of the work, you are legally entitled (under copyright law) to transcribe the work and create a copy. You then become the 'owner' of the copy you created. Why is a GPL'd program any different? The copyright owner has, under the terms of the GPL, given permission for copies to be made as long as certain conditions are met. These conditions do not mention being the legal owner of work which is copied, just that source code must be made available (by one of the 3 mechanisms stated), that the copy and any derivative works must be subject to the same licence, and that no extra conditions be added. The preamble of GPL2 states "to make sure the software is free for all its USERS" (my emphasis). Is this not saying that it is the user of the software, not just the 'owner' of the copy, that has the rights outlined in the GPL? So surely, all that is required is legal access to a copy not legal ownership of the copy. _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnuemail@example.com http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss