On the other hand, the GPL also says that the act of "running the
   program" is outside its scope...

Person A gives CD to person B to access the content.  There is no
`running' involved.  You are once again inventing things that are
simply outsied the discussion.

Once you have obtained a legal copy of the program, doesn't matter
from who, be it your employer, your dog, or a dragon, you are able to
accept the license.  It is cleary stated in the GNU GPL.

   I think you're not going to be followed in this interpretation,
   because the GPL is pretty clear about the fact that it is concerned
   with making copies and preparing derivative works, not about giving
   all who come in contact with the program the right to obtain or
   request copies for themselves.

Nobody claimed this.  Stop inventing things.

The person has legally obtained a copy of the program.  No running is

   Taking the law in your own hands and copying software because you
   happen to have access to it (like my example of a technician
   copying presumed GPLed software off a disk that's being recovered,
   or you copying from your employer's system without permission) is

No, it is not.  The license explcitly allows this if you have been
able to legally obtain the software.

   First, no third party (even the author of a GPLed work) can give
   you permission to copy anything from a computer or medium that is
   not your property.

The owner of the computer/CD explcitly gave this permission by giving
access to the content.  What part of the scenario do you simply not

   You, as a third party, have no reliable
   way to determine the license status, and hence any unilateral decision
   on your part can never be warranted. No democratic jurisprudence
   supports taking the law in your own hands, and software licenses are no

The copyright notice and license blurb are legally binding, and are a
reliable way to determine the license status.

Nobody here has claimed that anyone is taking the law into their own
hands, this simply something you have once again invented to distract
everyone from the main issues: Employer gives CD to employee with the
intent to access the content.  The employee can accept the license
since he has a legally obtained copy of the software.  That you then
go about inventing things that are simply not relevant is beyond me.

Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to