[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GPL and other licences

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: GPL and other licences
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 19:22:37 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Graham Murray <address@hidden> 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

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]