[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GPL and other licences
From: |
Alfred M. Szmidt |
Subject: |
Re: GPL and other licences |
Date: |
Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:59:03 +0100 |
On the other hand, the GPL also says that the act of "running the
program" is outside its scope...
Person A gives CD to person B to access the content. There is no
`running' involved. You are once again inventing things that are
simply outsied the discussion.
Once you have obtained a legal copy of the program, doesn't matter
from who, be it your employer, your dog, or a dragon, you are able to
accept the license. It is cleary stated in the GNU GPL.
I think you're not going to be followed in this interpretation,
because the GPL is pretty clear about the fact that it is concerned
with making copies and preparing derivative works, not about giving
all who come in contact with the program the right to obtain or
request copies for themselves.
Nobody claimed this. Stop inventing things.
The person has legally obtained a copy of the program. No running is
involved.
Taking the law in your own hands and copying software because you
happen to have access to it (like my example of a technician
copying presumed GPLed software off a disk that's being recovered,
or you copying from your employer's system without permission) is
illegal.
No, it is not. The license explcitly allows this if you have been
able to legally obtain the software.
First, no third party (even the author of a GPLed work) can give
you permission to copy anything from a computer or medium that is
not your property.
The owner of the computer/CD explcitly gave this permission by giving
access to the content. What part of the scenario do you simply not
understand?
You, as a third party, have no reliable
way to determine the license status, and hence any unilateral decision
on your part can never be warranted. No democratic jurisprudence
supports taking the law in your own hands, and software licenses are no
exception.
The copyright notice and license blurb are legally binding, and are a
reliable way to determine the license status.
Nobody here has claimed that anyone is taking the law into their own
hands, this simply something you have once again invented to distract
everyone from the main issues: Employer gives CD to employee with the
intent to access the content. The employee can accept the license
since he has a legally obtained copy of the software. That you then
go about inventing things that are simply not relevant is beyond me.
- Re: GPL and other licences, (continued)
- Message not available
- Re: GPL and other licences, Graham Murray, 2006/02/14
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/14
- Re: GPL and other licences, Stefaan A Eeckels, 2006/02/15
- Re: GPL and other licences, Graham Murray, 2006/02/15
- Re: GPL and other licences, Stefaan A Eeckels, 2006/02/15
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/15
- Re: GPL and other licences, Graham Murray, 2006/02/15
- Re: GPL and other licences, Stefaan A Eeckels, 2006/02/15
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/16
- Message not available
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/16
- Re: GPL and other licences,
Alfred M. Szmidt <=
- Message not available
- Re: GPL and other licences, David Kastrup, 2006/02/15
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/15
- Message not available
- Re: GPL and other licences, David Kastrup, 2006/02/15
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/16
- Message not available
- Re: GPL and other licences, David Kastrup, 2006/02/14
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/15
- Message not available
- Re: GPL and other licences, Bernd Jendrissek, 2006/02/14
- Re: GPL and other licences, David Kastrup, 2006/02/14
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/14
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/14