Re: Web application licenses
Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
>> In other words, it's very clear that my running postfix to send you
>> this message is not a public performance of postfix.
>
> Perhaps that is clear to you. I think to execute software is to
> render it, even if you do not use common sense in applying the
> standards for literary work to software. In the absence of specific
> case law (I could not find any), we may have to agree to disagree.
That's not common sense -- the copyright law special-cases literary
works, sound recordings, musical compositions intended for dramatic
works and those not so intended, and so on. That is, it special-cases
*everything*. Public performance is very clearly described, and the
definition lists images and sounds -- the software transmitting this
message has neither. So in sending this, I'm not performing any
software.
But in your model, am I performing the MUA, the MTA, the network
stack, libc, the firewall, the NAT software, the routers in between,
Spamassassin on your side, the mailing list manager, your MTA, MDA, or
MUA? All of them?
>> > People accept the GPL's boundary of copyleft (components normally
>> > shipped with the computer); that can certainly be applied to network
>> > servers, avoiding the argument that if the kernel and C library used
>> > such a license you might have to distribute sources for them too.
>>
>> But what's the OS for the network? Why is the web server on the other
>> end relevant, as well as the CGI script it's presenting, but not the
>> network equipment in between? Especially if it's altering the data in
>> transit?
>
> I do not see how altering the data in transit is pertinent. Are you
> arguing that because some application uses IPv4, it can be encumbered
> by a copyright license on code running on a router, or vice versa?
No, but surely the person running the router is performing its code,
in your model. And if the router alters data in transit, then it
creates a derivative work as it passes the packets along, right?
Surely, then, the license on that alteration matters.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: