On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:36:51PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 10:43, Branden Robinson wrote: > > I'd like to go on record as requesting that the FSF clarify this in > > future versions of the GNU GPL, such that only distribution of > > modifications are limited by the license, not modification in and of > > itself. > > I do not think this is going to happen, especially given AGPL's (2)(d). > > Indeed, in the current version, it is *perfectly clear* that mere > modification triggers (2)(a) and (2)(c). If it did not, why would > (2)(b) specifically mention distribution? Fine, then I have a beef with (2)(a) and (2)(c). It's not anybody's damn business what I do with the software in my possession, as long as I'm not distributing it. Neither the FSF nor anyone else using the GPL should be able to use civil discovery to seize my hard drive (perhaps on completely unrelated grounds) and then sue me for copyright infringement because I'd modified a GPLed work and neglected to put my name and the date at the top of every file I changed, or because I was annoyed by, say, GDB's disclaimer banner, and removed it from my copy. > > Imposing constraints on simple modification[1] is of > > questionable utility given the difficulty of enforcement, > > Enforcement should not be too hard. Most violation reports I get are > from users of the programs, and some are from employees of violating > companies. I think it's unethical to enforce this against non-distributed copies. > > to say nothing > > of potential clashes with the principles of Fair Use, > > I don't see a conflict here. If it happens that removal of (2)(c) and > (2)(d) stuff in the absence of any copying or distribution is considered > fair use, then those sections won't hold. But I don't think it is, > given Texaco. I do not think the FSF should support this erosion of fair use rights. > > and the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of privacy rights[2]. > > If the plain language of Article 1, Section 8 doesn't restrict the term > of copyright, what makes you think that the ambiguity of Amendment 9 > will restrict its scope? I'm referring to what it means, not to how it is commonly sophistically read to be meaningless. > And again, Texaco was private too. If you find me a case (and I > couldn't find one either way), then we'll talk about the Constitution > and Fair Use. The FSF shouldn't just do what it can get away with; it should limit itself to what is right. > > Mr. Turner, can you pass this along to the appropriate people? > > I've already expressed to people here that Debian-legal has serious > reservations about (2)(c) and (2)(d). Do you want me to tell Eben that > you think section 2, in the absence of distribution, is unenforcable? I > doubt that he would agree with you, and you are welcome to Section 2, in the absence of distribution, should not be enforced, no. Better yet, it should be rewritten so that it doesn't attach to distribution. I'm willing to listen to proposals for a version of section 2 that would attach to widely-used or publicly-used copies of a GPLed work (consider the time-shares of old), but my main concern is finding out whether the FSF feels that my "civil discovery" scenario above is reprehensible, and that its licenses should not be easily bent to support such a thing. -- G. Branden Robinson | "Why do we have to hide from the Debian GNU/Linux | police, Daddy?" branden@debian.org | "Because we use vi, son. They use http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | emacs."
Attachment:
pgp20zJO1U9vN.pgp
Description: PGP signature