On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:05:53 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
When an end user gets a copy of a commercial software program from a
warez site or just by borrowing a DVD from the office or a friend, that
is not true. That end user is not authorized to use the software and
the copyright owner can take some sort of action to get compensation, if
only to nag the user constantly via some means. That is what it says in
the EULA.
That is what is different about the GPL, I think, namely that the end
user arrives at the same endpoint condition and the copyright owner is
in the same condition regardless of the way that the software is
conveyed.
Going with the Verizon example, I disagree. When the end user received
the binaries there was no GPL notice, so I see how the EU is bound by the
GPL. OTOH, that binary was no more legit than a borrowed DVD.
If there were a black box connecting the copyright owner to
the end user, you could not ever say just what was in the box, only that
some mechanism existed for conveying the software from the owner to the
user.
After conveying the license to use the software to the end user, the GPL
goes on and on about what is allowed to be in the black box. I don't
think that the courts really care. They can only assess what variance
there may be in the condition of the copyright owner based on what
happens in the black box and, if there is no measurable effect, there
can be no corrective action taken or compensation awarded.
Could the end user in receipt of the Verizon router end up owing
copyright fines? Well, only if the binary were illegitimate. So, if an
EU started distributing that binary, I think there would be consequences.