[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: Proposed QPL mods - 3rd try
From:       "Jules Bean" <jmlb2 () hermes ! cam ! ac ! uk>
Date:       1998-12-01 13:06:18
[Download RAW message or body]

--On Tue, Dec 1, 1998 3:25 am -0600 "Andreas Pour" <pour@mieterra.com>
wrote: 

> The "fair use" doctrine is quite varied and complex.  However, I think it
applies
> principally to making copies of a work "for purposes such as criticism,
comment,
> news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship,
> or research", not for general use, and in any event I am not at all sure
it permits
> you to create derivative works.  Just b/c the GPL does not govern use does
not mean
> use is exempt from copyright law.  Do you think you can take a song you
like and
> broadcast it on a radio frequency?  That's only a "use", right?  Well,
that's a
> "use" that violates copyright law.

Broadcasting violates copyright, yes.  In fact, there is specific
legislation stating this, I believe.

However, any use which does not violate copyright, cannot be restricted by
copyright.  Broadly speaking, this means anything that does not involve
copying.  Once I have legally obtained a copy of a program, the owners have
no control over what I do with it.  If I have legally obtained a copy of a
book, the author cannot prevent me burning it, nor can he prevent me cutting
it up and making a collage of the mess I have produced.

There is an "exception" to this.  The exception is that the copyright owners
may have forced me to sign a contract before they are prepared to give me
the program.  Obviously, a contract that I have signed could limit me in a
wide variety of ways, and if I didn't agree I shouldn't have signed.  A
common example of this is an NDA.  I used to be an Apple developer, and I
could have had access to Apple pre-release software - but to do so, I would
have had to sign and return an NDA.

Now, shrinkwrap licenses ('by breaking this seal, you signify that you have
agreed to the terms and conditions contained herein...') attempt to do the
same thing.  It is believed by some that shrinkwrap licenses are not legal
(I am not well enough informed to comment on that) and it is apparently the
case that they have never been tested in a court of law.  Some FTP sites
have 'shrinkwrap' licenses on them.  Netscape (pre-mozilla) is an example.

In fact, whether or not shrinkwrap licenses are legal is not that important.
 The most significant restrictions they impose (you may only copy this
program onto one computer) are restrictions that certainly *are* OK, since
the issuer of the shrinkwrap license is the copyright holder, and the
copyright holder *is* entitled to restrict the copying of his intellectual
property.

I am not a lawyer, and the above is not legal advice.  If I had any
substantive mistakes above, I certainly want to know about them.

Jules

/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
|  Jelibean aka  | jules@jellybean.co.uk         |  6 Evelyn Rd        |
|  Jules aka     | jules@debian.org              |  Richmond, Surrey   |
|  Julian Bean   | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk        |  TW9 2TF *UK*       |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
|  Debian GNU/Linux - "Microsoft *does* have a year 2000 problem -     |
|                      and we're it!" (paraphrased from IRC)           |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]