[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Distributing GPL software.

On 1/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai <paivakil@gmail.com> wrote:
> Download  the  binary  and  the *corresponding*  source  code.   While
> distributing only the  binary.  put on the CD, a  file saying that the
> source code  to every binary  on the CD  is available from you  to the
> person  you gave the  cd.  (``Sources  are available  from <address>''
> will  do).   Now, if  somebody  says  that  you are  doing  commercial
> distribution,  you can  comply by  giving sources  to the  persons who
> contact you at the <address>. (you now comply with 3(b) ).

Hey Carrera, just ignore what the GNUtians say. If somebody says
that you must give sources "or else", reply "17 USC 109, piss off".

< quotes from dmca/sec-104-report-vol-<2|3>.pdf >

Red Hat, Inc.:

  Let me just clarify that I don't think anyone today intends to
  impact our licensing practices. I haven't seen anything in the
  comments, nor have I heard anything today that makes me think
  someone does have that intention. What we're concerned about
  are unintended consequences of any amendments to Section 109.
  The primary difference between digital and nondigital products
  with respect to Section 109 is that the former are frequently
  licensed. ... product is also available for free downloaded
  from the Internet without the printed documentation, without
  the box, and without the installation service. Many open source
  and free software products also embody the concept of copyleft.
  ... We are asking that amendments not be recommended that would
  jeopardize the ability of open source and free software
  licensor to require [blah blah]

Time Warner, Inc.:

  We note that the initial downloading of a copy, from an
  authorized source to a purchaser's computer, can result in
  lawful ownership of a copy stored in a tangible medium.
  [but electronic redistribution/move-and-delete of that copy to
  downstream recipient is not covered by first sale]

Library Associations:

  First, as conceded by Time Warner, digital transmissions can
  result in the fixation of a tangible copy. By intentionally
  engaging in digital transmissions with the awareness that a
  tangible copy is made on the recipient's computer, copyright
  owners are indeed transferring ownership of a copy of the work
  to lawful recipients. Second, the position advanced by Time
  Warner and the Copyright Industry Organizations is premised
  on a formalistic reading of a particular codification of the
  first sale doctrine. When technological change renders the
  literal meaning of a statutory provision ambiguous, that
  provision "must be construed in light of its basic purpose"
  and "should not be so narrowly construed as to permit evasion
  because of changing habits due to new inventions and
  discoveries." Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S.
  151, 156-158 (1975). The basic purpose of the first sale
  doctrine is to facilitate the continued flow of property
  throughout society.

I'm with libraries,
http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation oughta be


Reply to: