Re: PHPNuke license
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 16:26, Walter Landry wrote:
> Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com> wrote:
> > [Just as a note, debian list policy is to _not_ Cc: individuals unless
> > they explicitly ask for it, or set appropriate MFT:'s. I have done
> > neither, so you need not Cc: me.]
> >
> > On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
> > >> Anthony is quite reasonable in presuming that the current
> > >> interpretation of "Fair Use" applies to cases where there is no
> > >> copying taking place.
> > >
> > > I think this is fundamentally unsound, given Texaco. I gave an actual
> > > Fair Use analysis in another message.
> >
> > Fortunatly, AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION v. TEXACO INC., 60 F.3d 913
> > (2nd Cir. 1994) is a rather narrow decision, and applies to a case
> > where there actually was distribution (albiet internal) and where
> > there was "institutional, systematic copying."[1]
Actually, there was copying, but not distribution, as I recall.
> > I'm still at a loss as to how you intend for the this decision to
> > apply to the elimination of Fair Use rights of software. Furthermore,
> > I'd hope that RMS and others would prefer that people be able to do
> > with software as they wished in their own homes, so long as they
> > didn't distribute it.
>
> I've also read through the whole decision, and I can't see anywhere
> that it talks about modifications not being fair use. It only talks
> about copying.
Yes, like I said, it's not the exact case I want. But it does talk
about copying in the absence of distribution, which is what I was citing
it for.
> In fact, it seems to argue that if there had been
> modifications (creating a transformative work) then there would be a
> better defense against the copying.
Sure, but it would have had to be substancial enough for fair use to
kick in. And there's *still* the other three factors to consider.
--
-Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668
"On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters
of principle, stand like a rock." -Thomas Jefferson
Reply to: