Re: Distributing GPL software.
On 1/13/06, Ken Arromdee <arromdee@rahul.net> wrote:
[...]
> The argument "what if it was Windows XP instead of GPL software" doesn't seem
> to work here. The first step would become "Person A can legally make and
> distribute a lot of copies of Windows XP to B..." This statement would be
> true for GPL software and false for Windows XP, so the argument wouldn't
> extend to Windows XP. Only licenses that contain the specific quirks of
> the GPL would have this loophole.
And provision of viral assent in Rosen OSL is meant the close this
"loophole".
In this respect, I really like the following legislative proposal:
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/reply/Reply008.pdf
<quote>
Copyright Act should state unambiguously that non-negotiated
license terms are pre-empted to the extent that they conflict
with the Act. Consistent with the model from the Boucher-
Campbell Bill cited above (in Section II of these comments)
and supported by the Libraries and a broad coalition of
interested parties, H.R. 3048, section 301(a) of the title 17,
United States Code should be amended by adding the following
at the end thereof:
When a work is distributed to the public subject to non-
negotiable license terms, such terms shall not be enforceable
under the common law or statutes of any state to the extent
that they:
(1) limit the reproduction, adaptation, distribution,
performance, or display, by means of transmission or otherwise,
of material that is uncopyrightable under section 102(b) or
otherwise; or
(2) abrogate or restrict the limitations on exclusive rights
specified in sections 107 through 114 and sections 117, 118
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and 121 of this title.
</quote>
;-) ;-)
regards,
alexander.
Reply to: