Re: Q: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc.
etc.
From: Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <edmundo@rano.org>
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Q: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:27:57 +0100
none <chloehoffman@hotmail.com>:
> ("[T]here can be no contributory infringement by a
> defendant without direct infringement by another.")
> Henning's point which I believe is a valid one is that an end-user needs
to
> infringe in order for someone else to be found a contributory infringer.
If
> the end-users are licensed, there can be no contributory infringement.
This is what I thought. So contributory infringement is not relevant
here. By ordering us to read up about contributory infringement, I
think Raul is trying to deliberately waste our time! :-)
Certainly Raul is not wasting our time. It is a valid issue. I would just
note out of interest that Napster tried to raise the defense that the record
companies gave all end-users an implied license to the MP3s they downloaded.
By Napster's argument, if the end-users are licensed, we're out of here as a
contributory infringer. Needless to say that argument lost in the 9th
Circuit.
However, I think Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> has a much more valid
point when he writes:
> The work comprised of P+L is being distributed, albeit using
> a covert mechanism.
I find it plausible that the law could and should work this way.
I believe the law does work in that way to some extent. The problem here is
that the end-user has pretty much unfettered rights to modify P and L to
create a derived work solely at the end-user level. In the absence of these
licenses, it would be a whole other story.
So do people agree with the following?
X distributes a program P under the GPL. Y distributes a program Q
under another licence which is incompatible with the GPL. Then Z
starts advertising and distributing, by means of singing strippers or
otherwise, a script that links P and Q together. Then Z is infringing
X's copyright. And it's not a contributory infringement; it's a direct
infringement according to our "covert distribution doctrine".
I'm quite happy with this way of thinking. It saves the GPL from being
bypassed without allowing copyright holders to restrict the way data
is used by people who have legitimately obtained a copy of it.
My view on fixing this "problem" is to change the wording of the GPL to
specifically cover off the scenarios to which the GPL authors object. There
are just too many permutations and combinations outside of this context that
could be affected by introducing the "covert distribution doctrine". It is
simpler to change the contract than the law.
Of course, we're talking only about U.S. law here. The relevant laws in
other jurisdictions may be the same or much different.
Edmund
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmaster@lists.debian.org
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Reply to: