Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 03:31:49PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> Not all jurisdictions have a concept of fair use, so licenses which
>> rely upon such a concept generally are not free.
> Ah, this is key.
> I'm need to understand how it's possible to have copyright on computer
> programs in such a jurisdiction -- any copyright which restricts
> unauthorized copying, such as almost any commercial program, would seem
> to be unusable in that kind of jurisdiction.
There may be an explicit right to to make transitory copies a program solely
as part of the course of normal use of the program. Which is very narrow.
Or you may need a license to copy, and your EULA may grant the right to copy
solely for that purpose.
> There seem to be two ways of reading §3:
> The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
> allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license
> of the original software.
> In one reading, the license must allow all modifications and derived
> works to be distributed, and §4 is an exception.
> In another reading, the license must allow some modifications and derived
> works to be distributed, and §4 is an additional constraint.
In another reading, the license must allow most modifications and derived
works to be distributed, with possible exceptions. Section 4 can be an
exception or a constraint; your choice. :-) There are additional implied
exceptions; derived works can be required to carry accurate attribution,
for instance. Since these are "guidelines", and since they don't contain
phrases like "All" and "100%", but also don't contain phrases like "Some"
or "A few", this seems like the right interpretation.
> This is an interesting ambiguity.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.