Re: GPL and other licences
| Intellectual property | | Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as intellectual | property---a term that also includes patents, trademarks, and other | more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and | differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It | is best to talk specifically about copyright, or about patents, | or about trademarks. | | The term intellectual property carries a hidden assumption---that | the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an | analogy with physical objects, and our ideas of physical property. | | When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial | difference between material objects and information: information can | be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects | can't be. | | To avoid the bias and confusion of this term, it is best to make a | firm decision not to speak or even think in terms of intellectual | property. | | The hypocrisy of calling these powers rights is starting to make | WIPO embarassed. If give means making you the owner of the copy, then yes, you now have a lawful copy of the software and hence copyright law applies. Once again, you do not have to be the _owner_ of the CD to be able to access the content. Unless you acknowledge that you have grasped this fundamental difference, I will no longer answer your posts, and consider you a troll. Since you have such a fundamentally wrong idea of physical objects vs. non-physical objects, such a reaction is understandable since you simply do not acknowledge what property actually is, be it in legal terms, or even in non-legal terms. People who resort to name calling are the ones who do not grasp this `fundamental difference'. ___ 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: Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For example you borrow from the library a book which comes with a CD containing GPL'd software. Under the terms of the GPL are you not entitled to make a copy of that software before returning the book and CD to the library? You do not need the library's (owner of the physical copy you copied) permission to do so. Not? You mean, I can just walk into a library and start scanning with a hand scanner or a digital camera from media that happen to contain public domain material, without actually borrowing the stuff out? No I am not suggesting that at all. What I am suggesting is that I can borrow a book from the library and once it is in my possession I can do with it anything allowed by copyright law. I can quote from copyright works therein (within the restrictions set by copyright law), if there is any public domain works in the book I can make a copy of such works. If there is a CD accompanying the book and if that CD contains works licensed under the GPL, I am suggesting that the GPL gives me the right to accept the licence and make copies etc. even though I am neither the owner of the physical copy nor has the owner given explicit permission to make copies. I still do not see why the licence only applies to the owner of the physical copy and not to anyone who (legally) has access to the work (for whatever purpose). To answer the point raised about the postman, the reason I think this is different is that postman only has legal access to closed package and not to the contents thereof. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
You do not have to be the owner of the copy in order to exercise the rights given in the GPL. You have to be the owner, period. Not according to the GPL: 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. Not? You mean, I can just walk into a library and start scanning with a hand scanner or a digital camera from media that happen to contain public domain material, without actually borrowing the stuff out? You'll find that this is not the case. You have to meet the library's conditions for borrowing the stuff, and only then they'll grant you access to it pursuant to the conditions of the copyright holder as permitted to them. They granted me access to it, so if the material is in the PD, then I am actually allowed to do so without `borrowing' the stuff. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:11:52 + Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. No. The owner of the physical copy does not have the authority to permit creation of additional copies or modifications. Only the copyright owner has that authority. The copyright owner has, by licensing under the GPL, given permission for copies and modifications to be made and for the these (possibly modified) copies to be distributed subject to certain conditions specified in the GPL. Indeed. But please notice that the GPL doesn't oblige you to distribute copies, it gives you the right to do so if you want to. And instructing an agent to perform an installation on one of your machines is not distribution, which is the act of giving ownership of copies to third parties. If you cede ownership of a copy to your employee, then yes, you have to do so under the GPL. But there is no transfer of ownership here, just a sequence of actions to be performed by the employee/agent. You do not have to be the owner of the copy in order to exercise the rights given in the GPL. If you are not the owner of the copy, the license --whatever it might be-- doesn't enter into it at all. For example you borrow from the library a book which comes with a CD containing GPL'd software. Under the terms of the GPL are you not entitled to make a copy of that software before returning the book and CD to the library? You do not need the library's (owner of the physical copy you copied) permission to do so. You cannot make a copy of that CD because the Copyright statutes explicitly forbid making copies, and neither can the library grant you the (legal) right to make a copy. The library can make lawful copies of the CD as long as the CD contains the source code because the library is the lawful owner of the copy. You, on the other hand, are not the lawful owner, and hence you most definitely cannot make any copy, whatever the license may be. Obviously, the simple expedient of asking the library to make a copy would give you both a lawful copy and the right to make further copies under the GPL, so to a degree the point is moot. But from the legal perspective, there is a chasm between your making an unlawful copy, and the lawful copy made by the library. Take care, -- Stefaan -- As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning, and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 12:35:30 +0100 Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please refrain from removing attributions. If you quote, have the decency to include the name of the author. I said: 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. But in this case there is no license between you and the licensor, so it cannot give you any rights. Whatever rights you have would have to come from the Copyright statutes, but they only apply when you are the lawful owner of a copy (which, to belabour the point, you are *not*). `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. But you did not receive a copy. You received the instruction to do something with your principal's property. Whether you use to receive or to give, what matters is whether you became the lawful owner of a copy. And when you're handling your principal's property on his behalf and at his behest, you do *not* become the owner of that property, whether it be a CD with software, or a car, or a power drill, or the text of a novel. The contents or type of property doesn't enter into the equation at all. 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. But you are not the lawful owner (or have lawful possession) of the CD. You're merely using it to execute your job. 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. Well, you have the physical ability to access its contents. But if this CD contains software, then I am not allowed to lend it to you for the purposes of installing the software on *your* computer, as I only have the right to install said software on *my* computer. I am allowed to sell it to you (first sale) as long as I remove every trace of the program from my computer. 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. If he transferred ownership of the copy to you, yes. If he merely instructed you to install the software on one of his computers, no. AMS uttered: 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. It doesn't matter what the license is, because the license is between the owner of the copy, and the owner of the software. It would matter if a license were a property of the software, but (for the umpteenth time) *it is not*. 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. Again, Alfred, the license is an agreement between you and the owner of the software. Without a license, the Copyright statues forbid copying. When you are handling a CD (as an agent or the mail carrier or a helping hand during a move) you do not become the *owner* of a copy, and thus you cannot do *anything*. The fact that the owner of the software is prepared to license it to you under the GPL doesn't mean he *has* licensed it to you. The only way you can invoke the GPL is when you first have acquired a legal copy. In the case that interests you - namely that you can make copies of your employer's software as long as you presume the software has been licensed under the GPL, to forget that the employer might have
Re: GPL and other licences
Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For example you borrow from the library a book which comes with a CD containing GPL'd software. Under the terms of the GPL are you not entitled to make a copy of that software before returning the book and CD to the library? You do not need the library's (owner of the physical copy you copied) permission to do so. Not? You mean, I can just walk into a library and start scanning with a hand scanner or a digital camera from media that happen to contain public domain material, without actually borrowing the stuff out? No I am not suggesting that at all. What I am suggesting is that I can borrow a book from the library and once it is in my possession I can do with it anything allowed by copyright law. Because a library is a special agency, with special rules fixed in special laws. I still do not see why the licence only applies to the owner of the physical copy and not to anyone who (legally) has access to the work (for whatever purpose). To answer the point raised about the postman, the reason I think this is different is that postman only has legal access to closed package and not to the contents thereof. Cleaning personnel is not permitted to read unclosed material, either. System administrators are not permitted to read mail that they have legal access to. And so on. Physical access to content does not imply permission to actually make use of the content in the same manner as the owner of a copy. -- 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
Stefaan writes: Obviously, the simple expedient of asking the library to make a copy would give you both a lawful copy and the right to make further copies under the GPL, so to a degree the point is moot. The library could also direct you to make a copy as its agent and then give you the resulting copy. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ 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 23:27:50 +0100, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 The implications you draw from first sale go way beyond this Alexander. In any event, we've discussed ways of resolving this particular conundrum in misc.int-property. Your pretense that the quoted statement is my last word on the topic is quite disingenuous. I have not found you that way in the past. Isaac /quote 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
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:36:44 + Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The assertion that the GPL gives you the right to make unlawful copies is obviously incorrect, as it is not a right the copyright holder can grant. GPL or otherwise, is the copyright holder not the only person who *can* give permission to make copies? Indeed, but he cannot grant you the right to make copies of something that doesn't belong to him. Do you really believe that a copyright holder can give me permission to make copies of files on *your* computer, whatever the license? Don't forget that you own the copy, but not the work. The right to make copies is with owner of the work. Your right to make copies of your copy depends on the license, but your right to refuse anyone to make copies of your copy is inalienable(*). Imagine that you have purchased a license from me. The software is my property, and I can license it as I please to whom I please, but I simply cannot give someone the right to make a copy of your property (i.e. the licensed copy you bought from me) even if that someone has legitimate access to your computer, and the license allows *you* to make copies. You own that copy, and whatever the license(*), you can refuse that someone makes copies of it. What the OP claimed was that the GPL allowed him to ignore the rights of the legitimate owner of the copy. This of course is patent nonsense, if only because the GPL is not an intrinsic attribute of the software, but an agreement between two parties, and thus external to the software, even if the text of a proposed license accompanies it. Take care, (*) I know one could write a license that stipulates that copies, and a male goat, must be provided to anyone who asks. However, only a fool would sign such a thing, so could those who like to dot the t's and cross the i's please refrain from bringing it up? Thanks. -- Stefaan -- As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning, and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:30:45 +0100, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 14:18:22 +0100, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For example you borrow from the library a book which comes with a CD containing GPL'd software. Under the terms of the GPL are you not entitled to make a copy of that software before returning the book and CD to the library? You do not need the library's (owner of the physical copy you copied) permission to do so. Not? You mean, I can just walk into a library and start scanning with a hand scanner or a digital camera from media that happen to contain public domain material, without actually borrowing the stuff out? No I am not suggesting that at all. What I am suggesting is that I can borrow a book from the library and once it is in my possession I can do with it anything allowed by copyright law. Because a library is a special agency, with special rules fixed in special laws. I don't think it is necessary to argue that the library is special. The library owns books and allows access to them as they choose. There are only a few provisions of copyright law that are triggered by owning a copy and the ones of interest here don't apply to books. No license or permission of any kind is allowed to exercise fair use just as no license is required to read a book. Fair use is copying done without permission. I don't think that lending out books for money to people you don't know with the intent to let them read and copy them is still covered by the normal fair use. What's your point? How does that make the library special? Copyright law allows lending books out for the purpose of reading them for free or for profit. Your correct that it would not be fair use, but reading does not involve any of the exclusive rights reserved to copyright holders. Copyright law places a few more restrictions on the lending out of software, which IMO makes the libary analogy even less useful. The library cannot lend the books out for the purpose of allowing copying. How is that relevant? 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
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:16:56 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:22:38 -0600 Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure whether I agree that you have to own a copy of GPL software to be a licensee You can indeed obtain a license from the copyright holder without owning a copy. A license is an agreement between two parties, and I believe that quite often Microsoft Volume licensing deals do not include copies of the software. I did not say that such a thing was generally impossible. The question is whether the GPL itself provides for becoming a licensee without making a copy. Isaac ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: First sale according to COPYRIGHT LAW
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [...] Let's analyse some situations: 1. You gave B to a friend that's first sale Right. 1.1 your friend sold B to someone else that's first sale Right. 1.2 your friend sold copies of B to other people (B1, B2, etc...) that's no longer first sale, that's distribution of new copies Wrong. First sale is about distribution of authorized copies by their owners. The GPL entitles your friend to make copies and he owns them. So it does fall under first sale and only a contractual covenant can interfere with your friend's right to distribute all his copies as he sees fit under first sale and not the GPL. and that can only be done under the terms of the GNU GPL, the only license that permits those copies. Otherwise, copyright says your friend can't do that. 2. You sell B to someone else that's just like 1.1 Right. 2.1 that someone else gives copies of B to other people (B1, B2, etc...) that's just like 1.2 Except that 1.2 is wrong. 3. you give copies of B to other people (B1, B2, etc...) that's just like 1.2 Except that 1.2 is wrong. Rui 4. Rui sold or gifted copies of B to Terekhov (B1, B2, etc...). Rui was compliant with the GPL and provided access to source code to Terekhov. Terekhov is not a party under the GPL agreement regarding those copies to begin with, and he may resell those copies under first sale ignoring the GPL altogether. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
