Re: Web application licenses

[Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>]

Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:

> 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?

You perform the MUA, MTA, network stack, libc and anything else you
cause to run on your side.  You sending mail would be private
performance of those, because you both operate and invoke the
software, and so you would not be bound by restrictions on their
public performance.  I would be publicly performing the MTA on my end
for you when my MTA accepts mail from you.  Execution of my mail
filters, MDA and MUA are private performance on my part.

> > 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.

Yes, the person operating the router is publicly performing the
router's code.  However, because mechanical transformations are not
derivative works under copyright law, and because communications
providers are allowed to forward data on request[1], the router's
forwarding actions do not infringe any copyright on either the data or
programs that generate the data.

[1]- 17 USC 111(a)(3), plus any implicit permission from originator.

Michael Poole