From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-31 12:45:40
Momchil Velikov wrote:
>
> Alexander,
>
> The discussion is drifting away somewhat ...
>
> So, the claim is that there's no need of explicit permission (in the
> Boost License) to make copies and copies of derived work
> (=distribute), because this right is granted by the USC.
Permission to MAKE copies (reproduction) is needed. Distribution
(redistribution) != reproduction. Reproduction is the most
"fundamental" thing.
http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation
;-)
IIUC, distribution right comes into play only in the context of
illegal copies. It's needed to put piracy dialers (they don't
produce pirated copies and only buy and sell -- distribute) into
jail.
>
> As a side note proprietary licenses do not allow distribution by
> explicitly forbidding it and are without doubt enforceable by virtue
> of being contracts.
Quoting Rosen: "in most jurisdictions the parties can agree to
almost any damn fool thing they want, except those things which
are against public policy." And the Libaries say that
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>
I agree. ;-)
>
> As another side note ditribution terms of GPL is not enforceable (in
> some cases) because one can legally obtain copies of GPL'ed software
> without being bound by the GPL and thus USC provisions apply.
Exactly. Clearly, Stallman and Moglen erroneously believe(d) in
"exclusive redistribution right" for software. But it doesn't
exist.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html
"The free software movement thinks all those activities are
rights, which all users ought to have; we don't even want
to cover those activities by license. Almost everyone who
uses GPL'd software from day to day needs no license, and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
accepts none. The GPL only obliges you if you distribute
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
software made from GPL'd code, and only needs to be
accepted when redistribution occurs. And because no one
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
can ever redistribute without a license,"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ha ha. And Ha.
"we can safely
presume that anyone redistributing GPL'd software intended
to accept the GPL. "
Yeah, dream on, Prof.
>
> Are these yours and Boost lawers claims or have I misunderstood
> something ?
Mine and only mine.
>
> And as another side note, when one is capable of downloading some
> software, does that mean that the software is in the public domain,
No.
> just because one has no idea whether it has or has no rights to
> download it ?
For example,
http://www.terekhov.de/DESIGN-futex-CV.cpp
is All Rights Reserved. I merely "display" it. Only fair use is
permitted (by law).
regards,
alexander.