Re: Web application licenses
> Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
> > It's also clear to me, from reading the bit of 17 USC 101 you quoted,
> > that running postfix constitutes a performance, even if it's not a
> > public performance.
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 07:25:54PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> That would be this bit?
>
> To ''perform'' a work means to recite, render, play, dance, or act
> it, either directly or by means of any device or process or, in the
> case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to show its
> images in any sequence or to make the sounds accompanying it audible.
Yes.
> Well, I'm not reciting, dancing, or acting postfix. I'm not rendering
> it or playing it either, as far as I can tell. I don't even *see* its
> code, which seems quite different from music I'm playing or a dramatic
> work I'm rendering.
"playing" is a rather generic word (example sentences from dictionary.com
include "The fountains played in the courtyard" and "played the matter
quietly"). I don't see that you're not playing it.
Alternatively, you might want to argue that computer programs are not
copyrightable at all [based on arguments analogous to the one you're
presenting now].
> playing a CD or a player piano, I still don't see the output at all.
> I do not perceive the work in any way.
I'll agree that you're not seeing the raw bits, but nobody ever sees
the raw bits. Instead, you see things resulting from those bits.
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: