Re: What exactly is Derivative ?

[John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org>]

Paul Nathan Puri writes:
> This question will be governed by the click-box case (I need to find it).
> Point and click licenses are enforced because they show that the user has
> read and agreed to the terms of the license.  In the case of GPL
> software, this does not usually occur.  It's a new issue, and the courts
> may not be willing to get rid of the acknowledgment requirement.  But
> then again they might.

>From the GPL:

  Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
  covered by this License; they are outside its scope.

Thus as long as I exercise only those rights which I have by virtue of
being in legal possession of a copy of the Program I cannot be said to have
agreed to the GPL.

The GPL regulates only activities that would be infringing in the absence
of a license.  Thus if you do engage in copying, distribution or
modification, you must have

a) Read the GPL and agreed to it in which case it binds you.

b) Read it and not agreed to it in which case you are knowingly infringing.

c) Not read it in which case you are engaging in activities which you have
   every reason to believe are infringing.

Therefor in saying that if you distribute copies of the Program you are
bound by the GPL I am being very liberal.  Protesting that you would not
have agreed to the GPL had you known what it said is a weak defense because
the GPL does not require you to give up anything that you would had without
accepting it.

Your point about community practice influencing future law is interesting.
A bit frightening to think of debian-legal or comp.linux.misc being cited
in court.

I predicted a decade or more ago that intellectual property would be one of
the major social issues of the 21st century.  I think I am going to right,
and sooner than I expected.  Copyright law and to a lesser extent patent
law is incompatible with computers.
-- 
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI