Re: GPL and other licences
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alfred, can you please try and maintain proper attributions and follow quoting conventions? I'm already doing that. 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 _content_on_it_! not the acutual CD. You do not have the right to copy the CD, so how could gain access to the contents? Because the employeer gave me explicit access to the CD. See the above sentence. If I am giving cleaning personnel access to my rooms, that does not mean that they are free to read my letters and listen to my music collection. Access is not ownership. You don't get when internal use is. It is only the owner of the CD who can accept the GPL and acquire the right to make copies and distribute those. It is the person who has the GPLed software who can accept the license, not the person who owns the CD. There is nothing to accept in a license. One accepts contracts. And no, the rights granted by either contract or copyright are just granted to the owner. The GPL states: 0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The Program, below, refers to any such program or work, and a work based on the Program means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term modification.) Each licensee is addressed as you. This means that the GPL _only_ grants rights to licensees. As a worker for a company that has licensed the software, you are not a licensee, unless the company chooses to give you license for personal use. For example, I do not own the disk drives on ftp.gnu.org. According to you, since I am not the owner of those disk drivers, I'm not allowed to accept the license. Right. But the rightful owner of those copies grants you access to it for the sake of creating your own copies of it under the GPL. It distributes the stuff. Are you claiming that a company distributes software when used internally? If so, it would have to adhere to 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) If your employer tells you to use company internal software for some task, do you really think you are in a position to demand the source code? 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. Wrong. Because you are granted access for the _purpose_ of creating your own copy licensed under the GPL, you are able to do so. The mere access itself (which could have been gained by accidental server misconfiguration) is not a license to do so: if I leave open the door to my house by mistake, that does not allow you to enter and read my books. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:00:56 -0600, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isaac writes: 17 USC 117 is a limitation on the copyright holders rights that allows an owner of a copy of software to make copies necessary to install and run software without having any permission from the copyright holder. Not copies. _Copy_. And one installation. Note the wording: ...Additional Copy ... another copy ... a new copy ... a machine... TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 § 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful. My reading of 117 is that there is no limit to one installation per owned copy. Surely you do not believe that you can purchase one copy of a piece of software and legally install it on a thousand computers. I believe that I could were a court to recognize that I owned the copy of software rather than having license it. Courts in the US don't seem to recognize such a thing. If you are familiar with something in the legislative history that speaks to this issue, please point to it. Otherwise I'm going to assume that you are going with your gut feeling. Isaac ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Isaac wrote: [...] I believe that I could were a court to recognize that I owned the copy of software rather than having license it. Courts in the US don't seem to recognize such a thing. Other courts have reached the same conclusion: software is sold and not licensed. -- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA As for installing on multiple computers, I think that it's totally OK. For example, I can install it on a computer at my home and on another computer at my dacha. The key is that I can't legaly run it simultaneously on multiple computers if I own only one copy. As long as I don't do that, it's all fine and dandy. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
David Kastrup wrote: [... license not a contract ...] Only if it's a license to do something regulated by government. Like a permit to run a public lottery or become a gun dealer. Such permits from state are neither contracts nor property rights. Moglen and RMS managed to bullshit you into believing that software belongs to state and hence is regulated by license not a contract. That may be true in the GNU Republic, but in the rest of the world IP licenses (to execise exclusive right protected by IP laws; EULAs aside for a moment) are contracts. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 16:10:17 +0100, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isaac wrote: [...] I believe that I could were a court to recognize that I owned the copy of software rather than having license it. Courts in the US don't seem to recognize such a thing. Other courts have reached the same conclusion: software is sold and not licensed. -- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA As for installing on multiple computers, I think that it's totally OK. For example, I can install it on a computer at my home and on another computer at my dacha. The key is that I can't legaly run it simultaneously on multiple computers if I own only one copy. As long as I don't do that, it's all fine and dandy. While it's true that some courts have decided that, the majority position seems to be otherwise. I'm not sure which court decision that line is from, but I suspect we can find decisions from other district courts in CA contrary to this one. Isaac ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [... license not a contract ...] Only if it's a license to do something regulated by government. Like a permit to run a public lottery or become a gun dealer. Such permits from state are neither contracts nor property rights. Moglen and RMS managed to bullshit you into believing that software belongs to state and hence is regulated by license not a contract. That may be true in the GNU Republic, but in the rest of the world IP licenses (to execise exclusive right protected by IP laws; EULAs aside for a moment) are contracts. URL:http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/license license n. 1) governmental permission to perform a particular act (like getting married), conduct a particular business or occupation, operate machinery or vehicle after proving ability to do so safely, or use property for a certain purpose. 2) the certificate that proves one has been granted authority to do something under governmental license. 3) a private grant of right to use real property for a particular purpose, such as putting on a concert. 4) a private grant of the right to use some intellectual property such as a patent or musical composition. (See: licensee, licensor) As you can see, you are wrong. Again. Too bad. The meaning of license you refer to above does not exhaust the legal meanings of that term. Those are meanings 12, but meaning 34 are also valid uses. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
David Kastrup wrote: [...] As you can see, you are wrong. Again. Too bad. The meaning of license you refer to above does not exhaust the legal meanings of that term. Those are meanings 12, but meaning 34 are also valid uses. Legal dictionaries are not legal authorities to begin with. And it doesn't say that #4 is not a contract (conveying a grant) subject to condition and covenants. So how am I wrong, dak? regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Isaac wrote: [...] While it's true that some courts have decided that, the majority position seems to be otherwise. I'm not sure which court decision that line is from, but I suspect we can find decisions from other district courts in CA contrary to this one. Regarding 17 USC 117, take also this: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/039303p.pdf My reading of it is that even under contractual restrictions, 17 USC 117 bars cause of action for copyright infringement when the party exercises sufficient incidents of ownership over a copy of the program to be sensibly considered the owner of the copy for purposes of § 117(a). regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
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 Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. That's because the copyright has ceased: the contents of the book are no longer subject to the protection of copyright law. Why is a GPL'd program any different? Because its copyright has not ceased. The copyright owner has, under the terms of the GPL, given permission for copies to be made as long as certain conditions are met. This permission is bound to actual copies. From the GPL: 0. [...] Each licensee is addressed as you. This makes explicit that the GPL is valid only for licensees. You can't become a licensee without acquiring a physical copy: that's what copyright covers. These conditions do not mention being the legal owner of work which is copied, What about licensee don't you understand? 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? The GPL could state no such thing even if it wanted to. Its reach is to the owners of copies. So surely, all that is required is legal access to a copy not legal ownership of the copy. The ink manufacturer can't grant people access to my letters, and the GPL software manufacturer can't grant people access to my software media. Once I pass copies on into separate ownership, I can only do so under the GPL (or the default provisions of copyright law). But internal use does not amount to that. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As for installing on multiple computers, I think that it's totally OK. For example, I can install it on a computer at my home and on another computer at my dacha. The key is that I can't legaly run it simultaneously on multiple computers if I own only one copy. As long as I don't do that, it's all fine and dandy. Depends on whether the typical I agree license is of the same opinion. A contract may impose restrictions and obligations, true. [... GPL ...] so running copies in parallel is ok when you accept the license. Accept? So now it's a contract... right, dak? Nope. It gives you additional rights depending on conditions. You can accept the conditions and make use of the rights, or you can leave it be. No contract. There is no obligation to accept the conditions. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Nope. It gives you additional rights depending on conditions. You can accept the conditions and make use of the rights, or you can leave it be. No contract. There is no obligation to accept the conditions. ^^^ Your ignorance works against you, dak. The court will look at your conditions and separate them into real conditions that define the scope of the license for copying (which distinguishes authorized copies from unauthorized copies) and covenants that define licensee performance obligations. You won't be able to enforce (or recoup damages for breach of) the later. Quite so. You can merely recoup damages for the breach of copyright, not for the breach of the conditions under which you granted additional rights. The breach merely implies that the licensee can't make use of the additional rights he had been conditionally granted. You can't sue in order to make him heed the conditions. But you can sue to make him heed copyright. He is not exempted from it, because he did not meet the conditions under which you granted a limited exemption. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
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. Cheers. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
David Kastrup wrote: [...] Nope. It gives you additional rights depending on conditions. You can accept the conditions and make use of the rights, or you can leave it be. No contract. There is no obligation to accept the conditions. ^^^ Your ignorance works against you, dak. The court will look at your conditions and separate them into real conditions that define the scope of the license for copying (which distinguishes authorized copies from unauthorized copies) and covenants that define licensee performance obligations. You won't be able to enforce (or recoup damages for breach of) the later. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
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. Very nice example, but lets make it a bit more specific to the discussion at hand. I borrow a CD from the library with GPLed software. I'm not the owner of the CD. AFAIU according to David (feel free to correct me), since I am not the owner of the CD, I am not allowed to recive a license, and thus am not allowed to even use the content in any way or form other than how the library wants me to use it. Clearly, this is absurd by any and all means. Why? I lawfully recived a copy of the GPLed software, and by the GPL I now have recived an license (if I choose to accept it) to copy, modify and redistribute the software. If there is a differently licensed program on it, then this license applies of course. Cheers. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Well, this is where you got it wrong - it's called IP (Intellectual Property) because it is a form of property. Whenever you produce a work of authorship (and software is considered a work of authorship like a novel or a poem) you, the author, are the owner of that work. In the legal frame work there is no such thing as `intellectual property'. It is a term used to confuse people. Intellectual Property can mean anything from trademark law, to copyright law, to patents. None of which have anything related to each other. Neither of these things are a form of property, property laws are a totally different thing. I'd like to answer your message, but once again you mix up property with non-property so it is sadly impossible for me due to the continued mixups of different forms of law. A CD is property, yes. Code is not. If you give me a CD and tell me `you are not allowed to access the content on it', then I'm not allowed to do so, correct. But you cannot give me a CD, tell me that I can install the software on it on one machine, and then say `sorry, the GPL does not apply so you are not allowed to redistribute it'. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Because the employeer gave me explicit access to the CD. See the above sentence. If I am giving cleaning personnel access to my rooms, that does not mean that they are free to read my letters and listen to my music collection. Access is not ownership. You don't get when internal use is. And you are still confysing property with copyrighted works to which one has been granted legal access. David, you are a capable person, but please read what is written. Your example would be similar if the employeer only gave me the CD to give it to someone else, i.e. postal office. But it has no relation to when you have legally aquired the content, say by having the employeer say `here, install this on the server'. The GPL applies not to the CD, it applies, and let me quote section 0 for you: This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. Does the CD have a notice of this type? No. Does the content on the CD? Yes. It is the person who has the GPLed software who can accept the license, not the person who owns the CD. There is nothing to accept in a license. One accepts contracts. Uhm, no. Not entierly true. See section 5. Either you accept the license, and get to do what the license grants, or you don't where you can't do anything. And no, the rights granted by either contract or copyright are just granted to the owner. The GPL states: 0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. Thank you for quoting that. Since the software contained on the CD contains a copyright holder and since I recived the copy legally from my employeer to install, or use or whatever, I can distribute it under the GNU GPL. This means that the GPL _only_ grants rights to licensees. As a worker for a company that has licensed the software, you are not a licensee, unless the company chooses to give you license for personal use. And since they gave me a legal copy of the CD, section 6 comes into play, and I have now _automatically_ recived a license to copy, distribute or modify the program. For example, I do not own the disk drives on ftp.gnu.org. According to you, since I am not the owner of those disk drivers, I'm not allowed to accept the license. Right. But the rightful owner of those copies grants you access to it for the sake of creating your own copies of it under the GPL. It distributes the stuff. Are you claiming that a company distributes software when used internally? If so, it would have to adhere to [... snip section 3 from the GNU GPL ...] If your employer tells you to use company internal software for some task, do you really think you are in a position to demand the source code? Ofcourse I am. The employer cannot simply disregard all licenses and laws. 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. Wrong. Because you are granted access for the _purpose_ of creating your own copy licensed under the GPL, you are able to do so. The mere access itself (which could have been gained by accidental server misconfiguration) is not a license to do so: if I leave open the door to my house by mistake, that does not allow you to enter and read my books. Yet another `apple vs. oranges' example. Your door doesn't have a license. The comparison is simply not possible. You are once again confusing physical property with intangible works. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
David Kastrup wrote: [...] What breach? Distribution of authorized copies fall under first sale. Sure, but there has been no unconditional authorization. So we are talking about distribution of unauthorized copies. The act of distribution doesn't turn authorized copies into unauthorized copies. The act of distribution is totally irrelevant RE determination whether a copy is authorized or not. So once again, what breach? regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The content does not magically jump off the copy. Accessing the content of the copy is the sole right of the copy's owner. And since I can leaglly access the content, the GPL jumps into play. Your access is limited to what the owner of the copy allows you to do with it. The GPL grants rights to the owner of the copy, not to you. Since you have not bought or otherwise acquired ownership of the copy, you don't get the rights associated with its ownership. And I'm allowed to redistribute it, if I so choose; No. You just don't understand internal use. You don't become owner of the copy just by having to use it in your work. and the employeer cannot stop me. Of course he can. After all, it is _his_ copy. He determines its use. If you are working in a locksmith shop and take work home with you with the owner's permission, that does not mean that you are granted permission to use the owner's tools for breaking into houses. Even though that's the purpose that they are sold and licensed for to the owner. And even though the tools remain perfectly usable after such a feat. (other than by not giving me a copy, He did not give you a copy. The copy is still his own. He granted you temporary use in the course of his work. I don't give my head to a barber. I just grant him access to it, and he is not free to do with it as if it were his own. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] What breach? Distribution of authorized copies fall under first sale. Sure, but there has been no unconditional authorization. So we are talking about distribution of unauthorized copies. The act of distribution doesn't turn authorized copies into unauthorized copies. The act of distribution is totally irrelevant RE determination whether a copy is authorized or not. So once again, what breach? Conditional authorization does not magically turn into unconditional authorization. It's one of your favorite mistakes. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 23:03:02 +0100, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] What breach? Distribution of authorized copies fall under first sale. Sure, but there has been no unconditional authorization. So we are talking about distribution of unauthorized copies. The act of distribution doesn't turn authorized copies into unauthorized copies. The act of distribution is totally irrelevant RE determination whether a copy is authorized or not. So once again, what breach? Conditional authorization does not magically turn into unconditional authorization. It's one of your favorite mistakes. It's not a mistake. Preaching the gospel of first sale according to Alexander appears to be a life mission. Isaac ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Isaac wrote: [...] It's not a mistake. Preaching the gospel of first sale according to Alexander appears to be a life mission. http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/e123816845315e68 quote authors=Jeffrey Siegal, Isaac What about the first sale doctrine? Indeed, if users own their own copies, including binary copies, of the software, than those users can transfer those copies without complying with the GPL's requirements as to source code access. Interesting. I really hadn't thought about that and my attempts to digest the implications on the fly are making my head hurt. I can't resolve the problems introduced by first sale without either making the user of GPL'd code a non owner or deciding that users really can transfer their copies, no matter what the GPL says. Gotta think about this. Kinda makes my whole argument moot if GPL users are really licensees. g Isaac /quote regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Conditional authorization does not magically turn into unconditional authorization. A promise on my part to forbear from distribution right under first sale and instead do what you decree is a covenant, not a condition. But no such promise is demanded. You don't need to promise anything. You can choose to heed the conditions or not. If you choose to heed the conditions, you get the additional rights over copyright. If you choose not to heed the conditions, you get only the default rights from copyright. And it has really nothing to do with copyright. Breach of contract is the only nonfrivolous claim you can make (provided that I have fulfilled the real conditions and created authorized copies). Nonsense. No contract has been formed. The only claim you can make is for violation of copyright. And that's exactly what has been done in all cases of pursued GPL violations. - Adobe asserts that its license defines the relationship between Adobe and any third-party such that a breach of the license constitutes copyright infringement. This assertion is not accurate because copyright law in fact provides certain rights to owners of a particular copy. This grant of rights is independent from any purported grant of rights from Adobe. The Adobe license compels third-parties to relinquish rights that the third-parties enjoy under copyright law. - s/Adobe/FSF Too bad that the GPL license does not compel third-parties to relinquish rights that the third-parties enjoy under copyright law. So, like most of your quotations, it does not apply. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What about licensee don't you understand? The part which (you claim) states that only the owner of the physical media on which the copy is 'fixed' can become a licensee. I can see nothing in the GPL which states that. On contrary the preamble states that it ensures that the software is free for all users (ie those using the program) and reads as though anyone who has access to the program (eg to run it) can accept the licence and become a licensee. Having become a licensee, you can then copy, modify and/or distribute the software subject to the conditions in the licence. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What about licensee don't you understand? The part which (you claim) states that only the owner of the physical media on which the copy is 'fixed' can become a licensee. Well, that is common law. You are only allowed to do things with objects (like reading their content) that are your property, or for stuff which the owner of the object permitted you to do with them. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
