Re: GNU License and Computer Break Ins
On 14-May-00, 14:22 (CDT), Paul Serice <serice@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure it is the common understanding, because I've read that
> > interpetation in several places; It's not original with me.
>
> I believe you, and I hope your right . . . but
There's a ongoing discussion in the AskSlashdot section of Slashdot.org
(http://www.slashdot.org/index.pl?section=askslashdot), under the
article titled "What Happens When Open Source And Work Collide?", that
shows (most) others seem to agree with my interpetation, for whatever
that's worth.
> This seems perfectly reasonable to me, but I'm a reasonable person.
> Stalman on the other hand . . . Well, lets see what he has to say:
>
> The easiest way to get a copy . . . is from someone else who has
> it. You need not ask for permission to do so, or tell any one
> else; just copy it.
>
> Apparently, you have no power to prevent distribution of your
> work-in-progress. If someone makes a copy without your knowledge,
> tough luck.
I prevent distribution by not making the copies available. The Stalman
quote means that if you (legally) come across the work, you need not get
permision to grab a copy. Interpeting the quote to mean that Stalman
condones breaking and entering is absurd. (I won't argue about the wired
interview, as I have no time to listen to a 20 minute interview that
would take me three minutes to read -- if you have a (pointer to a)
transcript, I'd be interested.)
You need to disinguish between the copy that might be obtained by
illegal methods, which not be unauthorized, and the act by which the
copy was obtained, which would be a problem. If you break into my
machine, and take a copy of the gcc source, then that copy is not
unauthorized. I will however be very unhappy with the way you obtained
it, and will prosecute if I can obtain sufficient evidence.
> What is very troubling is that by putting GNU software on your
> system you implicitly allow people to make unauthorized copies of
> it. It seems to be probable that if you implicitly allow people to
> make unauthorized copies of software on your system then you also
> implicitly allow them unauthorized access to your system.
I think this is a mis-reading of the GPL.
> It would be different, if Stalman would admit an exception. That
> sometimes you have to ask permission, but he won't. There are no
> exceptions in his world to the right to copy.
Again, distinguish between the act of copying and the way the source
was accessed. If I put gcc.tar.gz on my public web site, then you never
have to ask permission to take a copy. If you take a copy from my home
machine, the crime is not the copy, but the access.
Steve
Reply to: