Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net> wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 04:23:26PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > I was only concerned about this part of your statement:
> >
> > > The rest of
> > > us, as far as I can tell, think that giving a user a script that makes it
> > > easier to compile a certain binary does not equate to distribution of the
> > > same binary.
> >
> > If the binary did infringe, the script might well contribute.
>
> But I'm not sure how a binary can infringe on its own.
If it's not an unlicensed derivative work (which it isn't, in the case
of Quagga etc.; IANAL), it can't. But note that in principle the
creation of derivative works can be infringement even if they are not
distributed, and I haven't dug through case law to see exactly how far
17 USC 117 can be stretched from run-time use to local builds.
Note also the common-law principle (said to have equivalents in other
legal systems) that you're permitted to do anything that you have to
in order to make routine use of something that you have legitimately
acquired from someone who was legally in a position to offer you that
permission. There's lots of case law on that with respect to EULAs,
implied patent licenses, etc.
> > one reason why we handle DJB's works with such care (see
> > daemontools-installer).
>
> I'm not sure if you used this as an example because you know that I'm the
> maintainer of that package, but yes, I am well aware of this issue.
Actually, I didn't make that connection, although I have had occasion
to use that package myself, and to point it out to a lawyer as
something to be aware of. That's amusing.
Cheers,
- Michael
Reply to: