On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Russell Nelson wrote:
>Adam J. Richter writes:
> > source code. Loading a proprietary module into a GPL'ed kernel
> > produces a prohibited derivative work.
>The GPL relies on copyright. Unless you are distributing software,
>you CANNOT VIOLATE THE GPL.
As always, remember that I am not a lawyer and that this is
not legal advice. My recollections of what a lawyer said should not
be relied on as legal advice either.
I recall Dan Ravicher, lawyer for the Free Software
Foundation, at the "Free Software Licensing and the GNU GPL Seminar"
say that there was a string of establishing that copying into
RAM is restrictable by copyright. (By the way, this was an all day
seminar last month at Stanford Law School attended by about 75 people,
about half of which were lawyers. I understand they're considering
having one in New York, so you might want to consider attending if this
is of interest to you.)
Poking around google for a minute, I see the 1993 9th circuit
appellate case Mai Systems Corp. v. Peak Ccomputer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/991_F2d_511.htm):
| [39] We have found no case which specifically holds that the copying of
| software into RAM creates a "copy" under the Copyright Act. However,
| it is generally accepted that the loading of software into a computer
| constitutes the creation of a copy under the Copyright Act. See
| e.g. Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd., 847 F.2d 255, 260 (5th
| Cir. 1988) ("the act of loading a program from a medium of storage
| into a computer's memory creates a copy of the program"); 2 Nimmer on
| Copyright, � 8.08 at 8-105 (1983) ("Inputting a computer program
| entails the preparation of a copy."); Final Report of the National
| Commission on the New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works, at 13
| (1978) ("the placement of a work into a computer is the preparation of
| a copy"). We recognize that these authorities are somewhat troubling
| since they do not specify that a copy is created regardless of whether
| the software is loaded into the RAM, the hard disk or the read only
| memory ("ROM"). However, since we find that the copy created in the
| RAM can be "perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated," we hold
| that the loading of software into the RAM creates a copy under the
| Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. � 101. We affirm the district court's grant
| of summary judgment as well as the permanent injunction as it relates
| to this issue.
Also, Triad Systems Corp. v. Southeastern Express_ 64 F.3d 1330
(1995) looks relevant, since it apparently involved copying an
operating system into RAM, but again, that's just from poking around
the web (http://www.eff.org/IP/triad_v_southeastern_64f3d1330_decision.html)
for a few minutes.
I don't know if these particular cases are some of the ones
that Dan was thinking of. These are just one that I found on google.
I may dig around and send a more detailed response later.
Again, I am not a lawyer. Do not rely on my layman's
understanding as legal advice.
Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 575 Oroville Road
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / Milpitas, California 95035
+1 408 309-6081 | g g d r a s i l United States of America
"Free Software For The Rest Of Us."
--
general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/>
[un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
