Re: Q: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use
Chloe Hoffman <chloehoffman@hotmail.com>:
> >This is what I thought. So contributory infringement is not relevant
> >here. By ordering us to read up about contributory infringement, I
> >think Raul is trying to deliberately waste our time! :-)
>
> Certainly Raul is not wasting our time. It is a valid issue. I would just
> note out of interest that Napster tried to raise the defense that the record
>
> companies gave all end-users an implied license to the MP3s they downloaded.
>
> By Napster's argument, if the end-users are licensed, we're out of here as a
>
> contributory infringer. Needless to say that argument lost in the 9th
> Circuit.
If Napster tried to use this argument it supports my claim that
contributory infringement is not relevant here.
Of course, in Napster's case the premise (that end-users have a
licence) is obviously bollocks, but the principle remains that
contributory infringement is only possible where there is ordinary
common-or-garden infringement.
> My view on fixing this "problem" is to change the wording of the GPL to
> specifically cover off the scenarios to which the GPL authors object. There
> are just too many permutations and combinations outside of this context that
>
> could be affected by introducing the "covert distribution doctrine". It is
> simpler to change the contract than the law.
There isn't a contract. It's a public licence for gawd's sake.
> Of course, we're talking only about U.S. law here. The relevant laws in
> other jurisdictions may be the same or much different.
I'm not talking about US law. I always talk about law "in general".
This is partly because I'm only interested in licences that are valid
across time and space and partly because I'm not a lawyer and don't
have time to get into details of particular legal systems.
Edmund
Reply to: