Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)

[Alexander Terekhov <alexander.terekhov@gmail.com>]

On 9/14/05, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 01:14:21AM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> 
> > "However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
> > distribute the Program or its derivative works."
> 
> > That may be true in the GNU Republic.
> 
> > Exclusive distribution right is about copies (material objects),
> > not works.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, this list does not exist to serve as a safe
> haven for the legally delusional.

And who's "legally delusional"? Start with 17 USC 101.

"Copies" are material objects. 

"Works" are intangible things fixed in "copies."  Fixation of work in
a material object (brains and retinas aside for a moment) produces 
exact copy of that work.

Got it? Now read 17 USC 106(3) and 109. Next we can talk about static 
linking and 117 ("... Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the 
provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, 
along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part 
of the lease, sale, ...") and downloading (I mean lawfully made copies 
"from which such copies were prepared" -- see above).

< quotes from dmca/sec-104-report-vol-<2|3>.pdf >

Red Hat, Inc.:

  Let me just clarify that I don't think anyone today intends to
  impact our licensing practices. I haven't seen anything in the
  comments, nor have I heard anything today that makes me think
  someone does have that intention. What we're concerned about
  are unintended consequences of any amendments to Section 109.
  The primary difference between digital and nondigital products
  with respect to Section 109 is that the former are frequently
  licensed. ... product is also available for free downloaded
  from the Internet without the printed documentation, without
  the box, and without the installation service. Many open source
  and free software products also embody the concept of copyleft.
  ... We are asking that amendments not be recommended that would
  jeopardize the ability of open source and free software
  licensor to require [blah blah]

Time Warner, Inc.:

  We note that the initial downloading of a copy, from an
  authorized source to a purchaser's computer, can result in
  lawful ownership of a copy stored in a tangible medium.

Library Associations:

  First, as conceded by Time Warner, digital transmissions can
  result in the fixation of a tangible copy. By intentionally
  engaging in digital transmissions with the awareness that a
  tangible copy is made on the recipient's computer, copyright
  owners are indeed transferring ownership of a copy of the work
  to lawful recipients. Second, the position advanced by Time
  Warner and the Copyright Industry Organizations is premised
  on a formalistic reading of a particular codification of the
  first sale doctrine. When technological change renders the
  literal meaning of a statutory provision ambiguous, that
  provision "must be construed in light of its basic purpose"
  and "should not be so narrowly construed as to permit evasion
  because of changing habits due to new inventions and
  discoveries." Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S.
  151, 156-158 (1975). The basic purpose of the first sale
  doctrine is to facilitate the continued flow of property
  throughout society.

http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/reply/Reply008.pdf

regards,
alexander.