Re: Bug#317359: kde: ..3'rd "Help"->"About $KDE-app" tab calls the GPL "License Agreement", ie; a contract.
On Tuesday 12 July 2005 08:06 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 12:14:29PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > Well, like I said... I can't fault your logic. The GPL's use
> > provisions, or more accurately its express disclaimer there of, do not
> > require consent. BUT, everyone has to consent to the GPL when you
> > download a copy of it. By that conduct they are agreeing to the GPL and
> > right along with it, they agree to the warranty disclaimer provisions.
> The distributor needs permission to redistribute. Every free license I've
> seen is phrased as "permission to distribute", not "permission to be
> distributed to". So, how does downloading the work indicate consent of
> anything? Why do I, as the recipient, not distributing anything, need a
> license to receive the work, when the redistributor already has permission
> to send it?
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
When you download something from the deb archives, you create a copy. That
copy is not permitted under the copyright act unless you have permission from
the owner. If that's not the way you read 106(1), then downloading
copyrighted mp3s off napster was legal... and I suggest to you it was not.
> Are you claiming that downloading software is an act of distribution
> on the part of the downloader, rather than the uploader? If so, that's
> a new one to me, and I'd be interested in hearing supporting arguments.
> (That would make the word "distributor" very confusing.)
> Glenn Maynard