gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed


From: Hyman Rosen
Subject: Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:36:10 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)

amicus_curious wrote:
"Hyman Rosen" <address@hidden> wrote
Rjack wrote:
How does an "over-the-air broadcast television program" relate
to an "over-the-internet computer program" licensed under a FOSS license?

Both of them are legally copied in a way which restricts
further distribution of the copies.

You seem to constantly miss the point of the decision by the District Court. AutoCAD, too, tried to restrict the distribution of the copy. The copy was purchased legally, presumably, since it had all the documentation with it just as a copy of a GPL work might be obtained legally simply by downloading from some source. The GPL makes no limitation to how the program may be used.

You miss the essential difference - when you download a copy of
a GPLed program, it is you who is making the copy, and therefore
you are bound by the license (if you choose to be; if not, then
you do not have a "lawfully-made copy"). When you purchase a box
of software, you are not making a copy, and so you are not bound
by any license when it comes to disposing of it.

The GPL allows you without restriction to make a copy which you
do not convey. Making copies to convey has restrictions, however.


reply via email to

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