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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: Proposed QPL mods - 3rd try
From:       Andreas Pour <pour () mieterra ! com>
Date:       1998-12-01 19:05:24
[Download RAW message or body]

Jules Bean wrote:

> --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.

You are forgetting about "artistic" rights to works of art.  Probably not
applicable to software . . .

> 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.

Well, I doubt very much shrink-wrap licenses are not legal.  What may be more
of an issue is whether all of the terms that are included in those licenses are
enforceable (if you ever read them, some terms are *quite* obnoxious -- in
fact, it is getting more and more common for the consumer to have to indemnify
the copyright holder even if the copyright holder's loss is not the fault of
the consumer -- I cancelled my DirectPC service b/c of a provision like this).
This would be a question of consumer protection laws.  Somehow I figure that a
provision somewhat limiting your right to distribute a copyrighted work freely
(as in the case of the Qt license) will survive any consumer protection law
challenge :-)  .

Ditto on the no legal advice bit.

Regards,

Andreas Pour
pour@mieterra.com

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