Re: Freeness of licence for wwwcount?

[Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>]

Joe Smith writes:

> "Steve Langasek" <vorlon@debian.org> wrote in message 
> [🔎] 20050919030709.GA20451@tennyson.dodds.net">news:[🔎] 20050919030709.GA20451@tennyson.dodds.net...
>>So this license prohibits private modifications.
>
> Based on what I see, this was intended to be expat or BSD-like, except 
> requiring that the source be available on distribution. This is somewhat 
> more like the MPL. It can be used in commercial programs but the source for 
> the parts taken from this package must still be available.
>
> Based on what I have read on d-l, simple statements like this might be 
> interpreted directly by copyright law, rather than by contract law.
> If that is indeed the case theuse of the words 'use' and 'modification' 
> clauses are legally no-op. Copyright was intended to be the excusive right 
> of the author to control copying of the work in question. It has long been 
> held that private copying is not covered by copyright. (Think: making a 
> cassette tape from a cd). Thus copyright has traditionally been viewed as 
> the exclusive right of the author to control distribution of newly made 
> copies (not yet distributed). First sale prevents the control of copies that 
> have already changed hands. Thus copyright only covers distribution.
> That would make the package free.

You are confusing limited fair use rights (which only exist in some
jurisdictions) with substantial rights to copy and modify a work.

Even in the US, copyright law still reserves the general right to make
private copies to the copyright owner; the law only permits private
copying for limited purposes.  It reserves even more of the rights to
modify the work.  European countries tend to give copyright owners
even more control over the work.

Michael Poole