Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?
On 5/18/05, Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com> wrote:
> But we're doing more than distributing the tarball. The tarballs we're
> distributing have been modified so that the user need only type a
> couple commands, and (using software we've provided) the
> binaries are reconstituted on their machine.
>
> Logically, the process used here is more complex than that used by
> gunzip, but effect is similar.
If nothing else, 17 USC 117 and dynamic linking absolutely protect you
from this theory of infringement in the US. Many jurisdictions are
said to have equivalents. IANAL, etc.
> The end result is that we have taken steps to make the binaries appear
> on the user's machine, so we have some responsibility for that result.
That theory is called "contributory infringement", is said not to
apply in many non-US jurisdictions, and is not applicable if the
user's conduct is not direct infringement.
> Of course... if it turns out that the GPL doesn't really matter for some other
> reason, this would be no big deal. M.K.Edwards appears to be arguing
> that this is the case, but I'm still not convinced.
The GPL matters! But not to constructs that aren't derivative works.
Cheers,
- Michael
Reply to: