> Because the employeer gave me explicit access to the CD.  See the
   > above sentence.

   No, he instructed you, as his agent, to do things with the CD. You
   are not accessing that CD as AMS, but as the agent of your
   principal. You, as AMS, do not derive any rights from this action.

... Unless the license gives me such rights.

`My' principal cannot redictate the terms of the license of the
copyright holder without getting the copyright holder to redictate
them.  If the license allows for sharing, then I am allowed to do so
if I recived the copy in an lawful manner.

   This is wrong. The word "has" must mean "is the owner of the copy"
   for any rights to accrue. Simply having it in your grubby little
   paws gives you the same rights as the mailman - exactly none.

Please, do I really have to be this detailed after having exlpained
the specific situation several times?  It is the person who is in the
lawfull posession of the GPLed software who can accept the license,
not just the person who owns the CD.

If you _lend_ me a CD, then I'm not the owner of the copy, and
according to you, I wouldn't be able to access the content.  This is
clearly false, and absurd.

   The FSF gives you the right to make a lawful copy of the content of
   their servers on your computer. If you, as AMS and not as agent of
   your employer, make a copy of software on those servers, you own a
   lawful copy, and that copy resides on your disk.

And since the employeer gave me access, leagl such, to the content of
the CD, then I can lawfully make a copy of that content.

   > According to me, since I'm allowed (legally!) to read the content
   > of the disk, I'm able to acquire a license for the software.

   If you do so as yourself. When you are acting as an agent for your
   employer, you are not acting for yourself, and all rights remain
   with your principal. That is what the law says. Using Word on your
   employer's computer doesn't give _you_ a license (that is, you do
   not enter into a business relationship with Microsoft which is what
   a license to use Word is).

I don't know what the license is of this program.  I can only assume
that it is non-free, so it will have specific clauses that prohibit
sharing.  Since the license prohibits sharing, I can't share it
legally with someone else.

Can we stick to the GPL? Since that is the only thing that matters
here, if the license doesn't give you the four freedoms, then the
discussion is moot.

   Can you now please stop posting, ans start thinking?

I have thought about it.  You have each time compared totally
different cases, I'm not talking about some postman here.  Please read
my message carefully.


Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to