[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GNU License and Computer Break Ins

> He has been known to support the POV you're arguing against.  See,
> for example, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html, where he says,
> among other things:
>   You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them
>   privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they
>   exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to
>   notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way
> This one of the criteria that the FSF uses to evaluate others' licenses.

Plain as day.  Thank you very much for the pointer.

But, you have to admit that this leads to a contradiction.

The quote you give says that it is possible to have private copies.
Apparently meaning that you don't have to let someone copy it if you
don't want to.  Apparently meaning that you have the power to prevent
unauthorized copies.

The quote that startled me yesterday says the exact opposite.  There are
no private copies.  Again:

      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.

Something has to give.

So my question is whether you can prevent people from copying your
copy of GPLed software.

If you can't, then having GPLed software on any system connected to the
internet is a security issue because preventing people from making
unauthorized copies is in violation of the GPL.

Silly?  Maybe.  But I've seen Debian attack the KDE people on lesser

Paul Serice

P.S., I understand Steve Greenland's position that I have no recourse
against an unauthorized copy, but I might have recourse against the
manner in which it is obtained.  I would like to hear that I would have
recourse against unauthorized copies.

Reply to: