[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 13:55:08 +0100 |
For the sake of nailing stupid dak once again...
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
>
> > John Hasler wrote:
> > [...]
> >> No. You are only required to give copies of the source to those you give
> >> copies of the binaries to.
> >
> > 17 USC 109 disagrees. The owner of a lawfully made copy is ENTITLED,
> > WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER, to sell or otherwise
> > dispose of the possession of that copy.
>
> "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. ["the
> license"]
HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476 (about 109): "any resale of an illegally
''pirated'' phonorecord would be an infringement, but the
disposition of a phonorecord legally made under the compulsory
licensing provisions of section 115 would not."
DMCA Section 104 Report: (ignoring Red Hat's "concerns" orticulated
by Red Hat attorneys during testimony***)
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."
***) < quotes from dmca/sec-104-report-vol-<2|3>.pdf >
Red Hat, Inc.:
Let me just clarify that I don't think anyone today intends to
impact our licensing practices. I haven't seen anything in the
comments, nor have I heard anything today that makes me think
someone does have that intention. What we're concerned about
are unintended consequences of any amendments to Section 109.
The primary difference between digital and nondigital products
with respect to Section 109 is that the former are frequently
licensed. ... product is also available for free downloaded
from the Internet without the printed documentation, without
the box, and without the installation service. Many open source
and free software products also embody the concept of copyleft.
... We are asking that amendments not be recommended that would
jeopardize the ability of open source and free software
licensor to require [blah blah]
Time Warner, Inc.:
We note that the initial downloading of a copy, from an
authorized source to a purchaser's computer, can result in
lawful ownership of a copy stored in a tangible medium.
Library Associations:
First, as conceded by Time Warner, digital transmissions can
result in the fixation of a tangible copy. By intentionally
engaging in digital transmissions with the awareness that a
tangible copy is made on the recipient's computer, copyright
owners are indeed transferring ownership of a copy of the work
to lawful recipients. Second, the position advanced by Time
Warner and the Copyright Industry Organizations is premised
on a formalistic reading of a particular codification of the
first sale doctrine. When technological change renders the
literal meaning of a statutory provision ambiguous, that
provision "must be construed in light of its basic purpose"
and "should not be so narrowly construed as to permit evasion
because of changing habits due to new inventions and
discoveries." Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S.
151, 156-158 (1975). The basic purpose of the first sale
doctrine is to facilitate the continued flow of property
throughout society.
regards,
alexander.
- Running modified GPL software on a server, rex . eastbourne, 2006/01/30
- Re: Running modified GPL software on a server, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/01/30
- Message not available
- Re: Running modified GPL software on a server, rex . eastbourne, 2006/01/30
- Re: Running modified GPL software on a server, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/01/30
- Re: Running modified GPL software on a server, John Hasler, 2006/01/30
- Re: Running modified GPL software on a server, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/01/31
- Re: Running modified GPL software on a server, David Kastrup, 2006/01/31
- Re: Running modified GPL software on a server, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/01/31
- Re: Running modified GPL software on a server, David Kastrup, 2006/01/31
- Re: Running modified GPL software on a server, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/01/31
- Re: Running modified GPL software on a server,
Alexander Terekhov <=
Re: Running modified GPL software on a server, John Hasler, 2006/01/30