[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: |
Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:17:20 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org> writes:
> Remember that the point Alfred was making is that because the
> software is licensed under the GPL, he is allowed to make a copy
> _even_ if the CD is not his property and he was acting as an agent
> of licensee/owner of the copy. To him, the license is a magical
> property attached to the software, and not an agreement between
> licensor and licensee.
>
> It depends on the license. The GPL gives an explicity right for
> this,
Nonsense. The GPL can't dictate that people may access my physical
copies of software.
> some other licenses may not. If I'm in the legal possession of
> GPLed software, maybe because my employer gave me an CD to use and
> install that specific program, then I'm also allowed to redistribute
> it.
Not if you are not owning it.
> The employeer cannot state that I cannot do this, since the GPL
> gives me this right.
The GPL can only give the owner of a copy rights.
> I think that employees do not have any rights to their employer's
> property, whatever the conditions were under which it was
> acquired.
>
> Even if the employer sold that property to the employee?
Of course not (in that case, owership of the employer ceases). And
the employer might also _grant_ the employee copying GPLed software
from the company's media. The GPL gives the _employer_ the right to
do so.
But the employee can't take this right for granted.
> (Note that my example was different, and more akin to person A
> giving a gratis copy of a CD to person B; David AFAIK claims that
> person A can still dictate what person B is allowed to do with the
> content. I claim that David is wrong)
As long as the copy remains the property of person A and person B acts
only as agent of person A, yes, person A dictates all the terms under
which person B might make use of person A's physical property.
You really don't get internal use.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- Re: GPL and other licences, (continued)
- 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, 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, 2006/02/13
- Message not available
- Re: GPL and other licences, David Kastrup, 2006/02/11
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/11
- Re: GPL and other licences, David Kastrup, 2006/02/11
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/11
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/11
- Message not available
- Re: GPL and other licences,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/10
- Re: GPL and other licences, David Kastrup, 2006/02/10
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/10
- Re: GPL and other licences, David Kastrup, 2006/02/11
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/11
- Message not available
- 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, Graham Murray, 2006/02/12
- Re: GPL and other licences, David Kastrup, 2006/02/12
- Re: GPL and other licences, John Hasler, 2006/02/12