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 14:47:44 +0100

GNUtian logic in action.

GNUtian David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >>
> >> Alexander Terekhov <address@hidden> writes:
> >>
> >> > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 11:43 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >> >> > Barry Margolin wrote:
> >> >> > [...]
> >> >> > > But that's not really a good analogy.  Combining two
> >> >> > > programs is not just making references, you actually merge
> >> >> > > parts of one program into a copy of the other.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What do you mean by "merge". They remain as two separate
> >> >> > computer programs (or parts thereof, if you like) under
> >> >> > copyright law. No protected expression was
> >> >> > transformed/modified forming a derivative work. Combined
> >> >> > executable is just an aggregation of many computer program
> >> >> > works under copyright law. If you insist I can supply you with
> >> >> > maps that will allow you to extract all those distinct
> >> >> > components.
> >> >>
> >> >> You can't include someone else's book into your own book unless
> >> >> they allow so.
> >> >
> >> > 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. 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."

regards,
alexander.


reply via email to

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