[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gordon Burditt) writes:
What *is* the source code to music? A non-DRM'd, non-encrypted copy
of the music?
I would say that the score is the equivalent of the source code, the
mixing details being like build instructions and the performance being
the equivalent of the
Alan Mackenzie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No: This was even covered in GPL2:
8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
may add
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The thing is that the copyright licenses of software like Microsoft
explicitly say you have to have one license per computer. Now... if they
were only stating copyright law, would they have to do that?
No. Because copyright law would not allow
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
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
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
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This very wide interpretation (giving copies to all who come into
contact with the program) is not how the GPL has been interpreted by
the FSF itself.
Do you not agree that section 2 states that the users of modified[0]
programs which accept
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The fact is that the GPL price-fixes IP at zero. The fact is that
zero is below cost of IP creation and hence is predatory. As for the
rest,
The GPL does not fix the price of anything. It gives freedoms in the
sense of a 'free man' not in the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gordon Burditt) writes:
Now, I, Evil Bill Fence Door, copyright this patch, sell it with
onerous copy protection, and for $1,000,000 a copy. The license
that comes with it prohibits re-distribution of the patch. Note
that I'm *not* re-distributing any GPL-licensed
