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

Re: PHPNuke license

On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:15:16PM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:47:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Why does anyone care about modified copies that don't get distributed?
> 	Oh...  Let's say you run an ASP service that uses GNU Hello
> World to display the appropriate greeting.  Making a modification
> without respecting all of 2(a), 2(b), and 2(c) would be in violation of
> the GPL as it currently stands.

I have heard that the ASP phenomenon is one motivation for a GNU GPL v3;
I'd be very curious to know what changes the FSF is making to
specifically target the ASP problem.

> 	Since the copyright holder has the exclusive right to
> modification under U.S. copyright law,

No, no, no, no, no.  There are *ALWAYS* fair use rights, which are not
enumerated but exist neverthless.

      Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair
    use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in
    copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that
    section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
    teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
    scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.  In
    determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case
    is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
        (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether
      such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit
      educational purposes;
        (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
        (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in
      relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
        (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or
      value of the copyrighted work.
    The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding
    of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the
    above factors.

I'd think private modifications easily fall within (1) and (4).

> I see this as a flaw in the
> wording of the GPL; not a malicious legal trap set by the FSF.

I agree, but that doesn't prevent someone else from using it as a
malicious legal trap.

[1] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/chapters/1/sections/section_107.html

G. Branden Robinson                |    Kissing girls is a goodness.  It is
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    a growing closer.  It beats the
branden@debian.org                 |    hell out of card games.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |    -- Robert Heinlein

Attachment: pgp_MPN6qScUk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: