Re: Web application licenses
Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
>> I disbelieve that, without agreeing to some EULA forbidding it, I am
>> forbidden by copyright law to install a computer game in a public
>> place. I might be wrong, but that sounds far enough out-there that
>> I'd want to see references.
>
> 17 USC 101 and Articles 4 and 8 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty probably
> suffice. They definitely classify a network-provided application as
> public performance -- unless you believe that executing a program does
> not count as a "performance" of it, which to me sounds far out-there.
Section 101 very clearly says:
To ''perform'' a work means to recite, render, play, dance, or act
it, either directly or by means of any device or process or, in the
case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to show its
images in any sequence or to make the sounds accompanying it audible.
To perform or display a work ''publicly'' means -
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any
place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal
circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the
work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of
any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of
receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or
in separate places and at the same time or at different times.
To ''transmit'' a performance or display is to communicate it by any
device or process whereby images or sounds are received beyond the
place from which they are sent.
In other words, it's very clear that my running postfix to send you
this message is not a public performance of postfix.
>> On the other hand, I don't see how that's at all connected to the case
>> in question: use of software by network service, and whether it's Free
>> to require that source to such software be provided.
>
> I believe that use of software over a network (by members of the
> public) is public performance of it, and protected under copyright
> law. If that is correct, the argument over what it means to access
> the software over a network is moot, since "public performance" is not
> defined in terms of how the user accesses the work.
I used to believe that too. Then I read the relevant law. Unless
it's changed dramatically regarding public performance in the last
five years, I believe that is not the case.
Policy-wise, it might be a good idea. But it isn't the law now.
> People accept the GPL's boundary of copyleft (components normally
> shipped with the computer); that can certainly be applied to network
> servers, avoiding the argument that if the kernel and C library used
> such a license you might have to distribute sources for them too.
But what's the OS for the network? Why is the web server on the other
end relevant, as well as the CGI script it's presenting, but not the
network equipment in between? Especially if it's altering the data in
transit?
> I do not have wording that adequately balances freedom of use with
> copyleft for modified network services, but neither do I have proof
> that such a balance is impossible. My point in the above is to argue
> that copyright law _could_ enforce that kind of balance if someone
> finds one.
I'm not convinced. Look, I'm claiming something is likely
impossible. It's very easy to prove me wrong: provide a
demonstration. A demonstration would even be useful, since we could
then guarantee more freedom to users.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: