In <[email protected]>, on
11/18/2009
at 11:21 PM, Tony Harminc <[email protected]> said:
>and since it is well established that even such
>transient action is copying under the copyright statues,
That falls under the fair use doctrine. IANAL, but I don't see how copying
macros and include files could be considered fair use, although there
might be antitrust issues in restricting their use.
Note that this is different from the issue of copying a copyrighted jar
for compilation on an unlicensed machine. It might be legal if you used
the byte code only on the machine it was licensed for, but it would
definitely be a violation if you ran the bytecode on an unlicensed
machine.
Has anybody checked, e.g., groklaw, on this?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
