[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GPL and other licences
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: GPL and other licences |
Date: |
Sat, 11 Feb 2006 19:22:37 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Graham Murray <newspost@gmurray.org.uk> writes:
> Why do you have to be the 'owner' of the copy? Consider, for a
> moment, a different scenario. You borrow from a library a book
> containing a work which has passed into the public domain. Although
> you have not become the 'owner' of the work, you are legally
> entitled (under copyright law) to transcribe the work and create a
> copy. You then become the 'owner' of the copy you created.
That's because the copyright has ceased: the contents of the book are
no longer subject to the protection of copyright law.
> Why is a GPL'd program any different?
Because its copyright has not ceased.
> The copyright owner has, under the terms of the GPL, given
> permission for copies to be made as long as certain conditions are
> met.
This permission is bound to actual copies.
>From the GPL:
0. [...] Each licensee is addressed as "you".
This makes explicit that the GPL is valid only for licensees. You
can't become a licensee without acquiring a physical copy: that's what
copyright covers.
> These conditions do not mention being the legal owner of work which
> is copied,
What about "licensee" don't you understand?
> just that source code must be made available (by one of the 3
> mechanisms stated), that the copy and any derivative works must be
> subject to the same licence, and that no extra conditions be
> added. The preamble of GPL2 states "to make sure the software is
> free for all its USERS" (my emphasis). Is this not saying that it is
> the user of the software, not just the 'owner' of the copy, that has
> the rights outlined in the GPL?
The GPL could state no such thing even if it wanted to. Its reach is
to the owners of copies.
> So surely, all that is required is legal access to a copy not legal
> ownership of the copy.
The ink manufacturer can't grant people access to my letters, and the
GPL software manufacturer can't grant people access to my software
media. Once I pass copies on into separate ownership, I can only do
so under the GPL (or the default provisions of copyright law). But
internal use does not amount to that.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- Re: GPL and other licences, (continued)
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/15
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/14
- Message not available
- Re: GPL and other licences, Stefaan A Eeckels, 2006/02/10
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/10
- Message not available
- Re: GPL and other licences, Stefaan A Eeckels, 2006/02/10
- Re: GPL and other licences, John Hasler, 2006/02/10
- Re: GPL and other licences, John Hasler, 2006/02/10
- Re: GPL and other licences, Graham Murray, 2006/02/11
- Re: GPL and other licences,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: GPL and other licences, Graham Murray, 2006/02/11
- Re: GPL and other licences, David Kastrup, 2006/02/11
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/11
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/11
- Message not available
- Re: GPL and other licences, Stefaan A Eeckels, 2006/02/12
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/12
- Message not available
- Re: GPL and other licences, Stefaan A Eeckels, 2006/02/12
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/13
- Re: GPL and other licences, John Hasler, 2006/02/12
- Re: GPL and other licences, Stefaan A Eeckels, 2006/02/12