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

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

Re: GPL and other licences


From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: GPL and other licences
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 15:28:34 +0100

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > GNUtian logic in action.
> >
> > GNUtian David Kastrup wrote:
> >>
> >> Alexander Terekhov <address@hidden> writes:
> >>
> >> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Alexander Terekhov <address@hidden> writes:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > One can download a copy of GPL'd work (without any "I accept")
> >> >> > directly to a compilation on a tangible medium. In source code
> >> >> > or object code form (both forms are wildly available).
> >> >>
> >> >> The mere presence of duplicable material somewhere does not give
> >> >> you any automatic right to create copies of it.
> >> >>
> >> >> If somebody leaves his door open, that does not mean that this
> >> >> gives me the right to go inside and take or copy whatever I
> >> >> wish.
> >> >
> >> > Go tell this to Honorable ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.
> >>
> >> No need to:
> >>
> >> > http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/01-07482.PDF
> >> >
> >> > "Netscape's SmartDownload, ... allows a user to download and use
> >> > the software without taking any action that plainly manifests assent
> >> > to the terms of the associated license ... Netscape argues that the
> >> > mere act of downloading indicates assent. However, downloading is
> >> > hardly an unambiguous indication of assent. The primary purpose of
> >> > downloading is to obtain a product, not to assent to an agreement.
> >> > ... Netscape's failure to require users of SmartDownload to
> >> > indicate assent to its license as a precondition to downloading and
> >> > using its software is fatal to its argument that a contract has been
> >> > formed.
> >>
> >> "Contract".  See?  The GPL explicitly states:
> >>
> >>       5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
> >>     signed it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
> >>     distribute the Program or its derivative works.  These actions are
> >>     prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.  Therefore, by
> >>     modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
> >>     Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
> >>     all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
> >>     the Program or works based on it.
> >>
> >> In the court case you cited, the judge decided that if a copyright
> >> holder makes something available for download without further
> >> technical measures to announce its licence, then no contract is
> >> formed and the recipient is merely bound by copyright law if he
> >> decides to ignore the license.
> >>
> >> But copyright law does not allow you redistribution of copies.
> >
> > It does. 17 USC 109, idiot.
> 
> You are losing it.  You always resort to insults when running out of
> arguments.
> 
> > See also
> >
> > http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf
> >
> > "There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital
> > form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs or
> > DVDs, are subject to section 109 in the same way as physical copies
> > in analog form. Similarly, a lawfully made tangible copy of a
> > digitally downloaded work, such as a work downloaded to a floppy
> > disk, Zip disk, or CD-RW, is clearly subject to section 109."
> 
> "lawfully made".  There is no law that permits you making copies of
> whatever you may come across on the web.  You need the permission of
> the copyright holder.  There is permission implied in the act of
> making the stuff available for download, but it is certainly a stretch
> to assume that this implied permission would cover an unlimited number
> of downloads for the sole purpose of artifically and nominally
> circumventing the restrictions on the number and use of copies for
> _personal_ use that copyright law permits.
> 
> In general, courts don't react favorably to trickery intended to
> circumvent the intent of a law.

Handwaving. Go tell it to Microsoft. I'm eagerly awaiting to be sued.
In addition to a copy of winxp64 download (which was meant for you 
my dear dak -- recall it?) that I sold on ebay, the rest (14 copies) 
went on sale recently on debian-legal.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00161.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00177.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00466.html

BTW, consolidated know-how on escaping the GPL can be found in that
"Distributing GPL software" thread on debian-legal. And it's free as
in beer.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00163.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00166.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00174.html

and etc.

Enjoy.

regards,
alexander.


reply via email to

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