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

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

Re: Running modified GPL software on a server


From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Running modified GPL software on a server
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:00:43 +0100

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> "lawfully made", "dispose of", "possession".  It is clear that this
> >> applies to physical copies acquired in an exchange of interest with
> >> the copyright holder, not to things you duplicated yourself.  For
> >> those copies, your rights are restricted by the license.  The GPL
> >> allows you distributing such copies _under_ _the_ _GPL_, _including_
> >> the source code (or rights to it).  Copyright law does not permit you
> >> to do any distribution of them without license.
> >
> > Hey dak, Lee Hollaar the author of
> > http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html (I mean his
> > treatise, not the Foreword written by the Chief Judge and the Chief
> > Intellectual Property Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee)
> > told you several times in the past that your understanding of
> > "first sale" is totally wrong. Here's what Lee Hollar who worked
> > with the Chief Judge and the Chief Intellectual Property Counsel to
> > the Senate Judiciary Committee on Internet, copyright, and patent
> > issues as a Committee Fellow had to say about the GNU legal nonsense
> > version 3 (note that most of it applies to GNU legal nonsense
> > version 2 as well).
> 
> You are a practical joker.  Do you even _read_ what you cite?  Hollaar
> is here talking about the right to modify, not the right to copy.  And
> certainly not about "first sale".

You're a real idiot.

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/4d2438aa5d80f803

<quote author=Hollaar>

In article <address@hidden> address@hidden writes:
>"Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain
>within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised,
>but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the
>license permits." [quoting Eben Moglen]

That might be true IF "she doesn't have any right to act at all except
as the license permits."  But as I have pointed out here and in my
comments to the FSF regarding the new GPLv3, that is not the case.
United States copyright law provides a number of exceptions to the
exclusive rights of the copyright owner, including "first sale" as
covered in 17 U.S.C. 109 and the right in 17 U.S.C. 117 of the owner
of a copy of a computer to reproduce or adapt it if necessary to use
it.

The convenient redefinition of things in the GPL reminds me of a
quote from Abraham Lincoln:
     How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?
     Four.  Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

</quote>

regards,
alexander.


reply via email to

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