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

Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem

Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Fedor Zuev wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
>JK>On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 07:50:32PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
>JK>> 	According FDL, "You may not use technical measures to
>JK>> obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the _copies_
>JK>> _you_ _make_ _or_ _distribute_". You has no obligations regarding
>JK>> you own copy of document. You only cannot distribute document and
>JK>> limit access to it in the same time.
>JK>However, if you _make_ a copy by using the cp command on your own
>JK>system, you are subject to the rule you quoted, and you can't put it on
>JK>an encrypted filesystem.
>	Again. You demand from licensce to cure a problem,
>nonexistent under any jurisdiction I heard about.
>	Computer is a single "tangible medium", and any internal
>technological process whithin it, you aware or even not aware about
>(How about, for example, a dynamic memory regeneration? Hundreds of
>thousands copies of RAM per second btw) is completely irrelevant to
>the copyright, and, consequently, licences.

_MAI Systems v. Peak Computer_ (991 F.2d 511) says otherwise.  To quote
part: "The district court's grant of a summary judgment on MAI's claims of
copyright infringement reflects its conclusion that a 'copying' for
purposes of copyright law occurs when a program is transferred from a
permanent storage device to a computer's RAM.  This conclusion is
consistent with its finding, in granting the preliminary injunction, that:
'the loading of copyrighted software from a storage medium (hard disk,
floppy disk, or read only memory) into the memory of a central processing
unit ("CPU") causes a copy to be made.  In the absence of ownership of the
copyright or express permission by license, such acts constitute copyright
infringement.'  We find that this conclusion is supported by the record
and the law."

>JK>It's also possible to interpret _make_ to cover
>JK>a download initiated by you, since a new copy of the program is
>JK>certainly being made.
>	No. At the moment of download you not have the copy of
>licence that shipped with the package. So, you cannot agree or not
>agree with this licence to get or not get the right to make copy.
>For initial download you anyway need an another source of right.
>Distributor consent, usually. Distributor has this right, according
>to _his_ copy of licence. And licence do not demand from a
>distributor to control medium of downloader`s copy. Licence only
>demand not to encrypt work himself.

Upon download, a new license gets granted from the FSF to yourself.
Given that breaking shrinkwrap can constitute acceptance of a license, it
is not that much of a stretch to say that double-clicking or issuing a
"get foo" to your download client isn't enough to constitute acceptance of
a license.

- -- 
         * You are not expected to understand this.
- --comment from Unix system 6 source, credited to Lions and Johnson
Who is John Galt?  galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who.

Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76


Reply to: