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

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

On 2004-05-03 04:04:11 +0100 Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> wrote:

The only hint I see in the UK copyright law on how it deals with the
routine copies which are necessary to use a file on a computer [...]

If you're after computer programs, I think section 50A allows copying:

50A.-(1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program to make any back up copy of it which it is necessary for him to have for the purposes of his lawful use.

If you're after arbitrary data files, I believe they are treated like any copyright work. I think it depends what purpose you are using them for and whether it qualifies as "fair dealing" under Ch.III.

You really need to look at an "as amended" copy of the act. One such copy is at http://www.jenkins-ip.com/patlaw/index1.htm

However, I haven't been able to find anything in UK copyright law which
would cause a problem for the user who has a GFDL licensed document
named "file" where they issue the command "chmod 0 file" and the command
completes without error. [...]

I read the archives and I'm not sure what the relevance of this example is? In any case, finding things in published UK law is quite a challenge and not finding something at all just means it's more of a lawyerbomb.

However, if there are countries which allow copyright restrictions on use -- where the owner of a program may control how a person uses a program (outside of redistribution) -- then this GFDL license might be a problem.

As described above, I believe England to be one such state. However, "fair dealing" may suffice for most uses.

My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing

Reply to: