Re: You can't get a copy unless you accept the GPL
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 07:20:30PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> I'm not sure how you interpret that as allowing modifications for
> personal use -- creating a derivative work or other adaptation would
> not be "an essential step in the utilization of the computer program"
> (etc; note the qualification in the original "for no other purpose").
> Contrary to your claim, copyright law governs most tangible copies,
> derived works, and adaptations. That is why it explicitly allows what
> it does.
The CONTU final report states that "The conversion of a program from one
higher-level language to another to facilitate use would fall within this
right, as would the right to add features to the program that were not
present at the time of rightful acquisition."
http://digital-law-online.info/CONTU/contu6.html
> You can Google(tm) for the cases involving MAI Systems Corp from the
> early and mid 1990s (e.g. MAI v Peak) that held that execution of
> programs by people other than the owner of a copy constituted
> copyright infringement vis a vis 17 USC 117; these inspired the 1998
> addition of 17 USC 117(c) and (d) to protect other maintenance and
> repair people, but the holdings still apply to other third parties who
> execute a program on someone else's computer.
OK. I'm not sure how this is relevant to a discussion about whether the GPL
must be accepted in order to download or make personal copies of GPL'd
software.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <adam@debian.org> <adam@flounder.net>
Reply to: