RE: Bug#317359: kde: ..3'rd "Help"->"About $KDE-app" tab calls the GPL "License Agreement", ie; a contract.
First, my apologies for top posting... I'm using Outlook at the moment
(shudder) and can't for the life of me figure out how to get the old text
properly indented. So this is the best I can do.
As for Specht V. Netscape, Michael, I know you are a smart guy who is good
with citations; it boggles me that you would reference this case. This case
deals with the enforceability of click-wrap licenses, with particular
attention to forced arbitration clauses. It doesn't get to copyright
infringement at all, which is my point with the GPL and its binding nature.
There is one reference to a 'browse wrap' case in Specht where an individual
was sued because he took information off of a website in violation the
site's license. The court found that license unenforceable... big
surprise. But there is still an action under copyright law, the guy got off
because of bad lawyering. Absent written consent you can't transfer (s)106
rights under the law. I haven't had a chance to look at the GPL after
Glenn's last post (hopefully tonight), but the operative question here, and
one that your skills with citations seems well suited to, is figuring out
the following question:
"If individual A is authorized to distribute software, and individual B
initiates an action that results in a copy being made of that software from
A's distribution server, has B violated the original author's 106(1) rights?
Or, as I believe Glenn is suggesting (and may be right... question is
really interesting) does the grant to distribute authorize B to give others
the right to copy in the process of distribution?"
If Glenn is wrong, and a downloader does not agree to the GPL, then it seems
to me the downloader has no right to retain a copy of the software.
From: Michael K. Edwards [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 1:34 PM
To: Sean Kellogg
Subject: Re: Bug#317359: kde: ..3'rd "Help"->"About $KDE-app" tab calls the
GPL "License Agreement", ie; a contract.
On 7/12/05, Sean Kellogg <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> When you download something from the deb archives, you create a copy.
> copy is not permitted under the copyright act unless you have permission
> 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
Specht v. Netscape. Napster case is irrelevant. I can't find
anything to disagree with in any of Glenn's contributions in this
thread. IANAL and all that.