Re: scope of linux in the corporates...


Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

It is giving you permission both to copy and to distribute. If your
interpretation were correct, it would be unlawful to copy without
distributing. (What would give you the permission to do so, since
copyright law prohibits it?)

Copying without distributing is simply *using* the program.
That includes installing it, archiving it, making backups,
restoring from backups, or just saving an extra copy in a
different directory.

(And it includes copying it to my laptop.)

You are confusing copying the common English sense with copying under
copyright law. A lawfully made copy (one made pursuant to a copyright
license) can be transferred without it infrining on the distribution
right.

Under "TERMS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION"
the title of which clearly distinguishes between the two, in
Section 2 it also clearly distinguishes between modifying your
own copies as opposed to modified copies that are for
distribution.

Huh? We aren't talking about modifying, we are talking about copying

If it distinguishes between modifying copies for yourself and for
distribution, then clearly it distinguishes between copying for yourself
and for distribution.

There is no such thing as "copying for yourself". If you can lawfully
make a copy, you have the legal right to transfer it. Nothing the GPL
says can change that, *UNLESS* it imposes burdens on the copying
itself.

Note also this statement as to the intent of all of the above,

"... the intent is to exercise the right to control the
distribution of derivative or collective works based on the
Program."

It does *not* say it is to control copying, it specifically says it
is to control distribution.

This section is not setting out precise legal requirements. It is
simply describing what the license is intended to do. I don't know if

Exactly. Of course those are "precise legal requirements".

this paragraph means "distribution" in the technical legal sense or in
a more informal sense.

There is no legalese in the GPL. There is no reason to assume
it means something different in one paragraph than it does in
another.

You are speaking complete nonsense. If you were correct, and the FSF is
correct about the distinction between copying and distributing, I could
offer binaries only of a GPL'd work on a P2P service and be fully
complying with the GPL. (It is the EFF's position that offering a work
on a P2P service is copying, it is *not* distributing.)

In any event, it doesn't change section 3 which
does set out the precise legal requirements.

For copies made when you are distributing the program.

The burden has to be on the copying itself because copyright law gives
you the right to transfer a lawfully-made copy.

The license does not require anyone to accept it in order to
acquire, install, use, inspect, or even experimentally modify
GPL'd software. ... 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.
Eben Moglen

Reconcile that quote with section 5 of the GPL before you treat it as
gospel.

Then it is illegal to copy without distributing. (Since by your silly
argument, the GPL does not give you either right alone.)

See above clarification by Eben Moglen.

I am disagreeing with *you*, not Moglen. Moglen doesn't save your
argument that the GPL section only grants the right to "copy and
distribute" and not the right to do either alone.

Moglen is right about this and you are wrong, the GPL grants you both
rights. He is, however, incorrect about modification. (Actually, I
hesitate to say he is wrong, I know what he is meaning to say. He means
to say that you must accept the GPL but it imposes no conditions until
you distribute (in the informal sense of the word "distribute"))

No, it's a legal fact. Distribution can only take place on a physical
medium. If the GPL burdened only distribution and not copying, you
could make copies and send them over the Internet as you wished. The
legal standard for "distributing" would not be met.

Where do you get such absurd ideas? If you "send them over the
Internet", all is just fine and indeed there is no copy... until
someone receives them over the Internet and saves it to a file
on a disk. Bingo. You now have a copy.

Right, but you said the GPL didn't burden copying, only distributing.

If *you* are both the sender and the receiver, there is no
distribution; if you send it to someone else you are engaged in
a distribution.

No, that is not the legal meaning of distribution. See, for example:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060228-6281.html

basic idea is that almost anything you can do that would qualify as
"distributing" can be done as "copying". This is why the rights are
almost always granted in pairs. For example, making copies and then
permitting those copies to be transferred electronically is not
"distributing". This is why, for example, radio stations do not need
the right to "distribute" a song they play.

They are *not* distributing a copy of the song.

Right.

On the other
hand, if someone records it from the radio, that is indeed a
"copy". It may or may not be legal. Likewise redistribution
via another broadcast is also a "copy", hence if you play a
radio station on the speaker in an elevator, you are violating
the copyright on all copyrighted material that you do not have a
legal right to. The same applies to playing the music for
customers in a business, for example on a speaker system in a
restaurant. (You _can_ have a radio in the kitchen, for the cook
to listen too...)

That would be a violation of the public performance right. There really
is nothing analogous with software AFAIK.

This cannot mean distribution in the precise technical sense, it just
means people getting copies of the work. This is not meant to be a
legally precise section, it simply states the motive or purpose of the
license.

There is *nothing* in the GPL that is not a "legally precise section".

Then you could offer a binary over a P2P service without offering the
source, because that is not distribution in the legally precise sense.
That can't be what the GPL means.

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you
have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you
permission to *modify* or *distribute* the Program or its
derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if
you do not accept this License. Therefore, by *modifying* or
*distributing* the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to
do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying,
distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

Note the lack of any reference to "copying".

It doesn't matter. This paragraph is a legal nullity. It simply tells

Where do you get bull*** like "a legal nullity"?

This paragraph just tells you what the law is. It doesn't impose any
requirements or grant any rights. It has no legal affect. How is that
not obvious?

For example, if it said, "You are required to accept this License",
would that mean you were in fact required to accept it?

That paragraph is just informing you about the law. It cannot change
the law.

It is not at all tricky to explain why. You have no right other
than those licensed. It clearly says you can copy and use the
program as you like, but you cannot distribute or modify it
except as described.

What? Where are you getting that from? Section 3 clearly applies to
copying it. If you could copy it all you liked and were only restricted
in distribution or modification, you could offer the binaries from a
web server and not the source code.

Offering binaries from a web server is clearly a distribution.

It is not. It is copying. Distribution requires the transfer of a
material object in which the work is fixed. (At least that's the EFF's
position. However, the contrary position is that copying includes
distributing anyway. So your argument loses either way.) See
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/RIAA_v_ThePeople/elektra_v_barker/elektra-amicus-efiled.pdf

Each item is distinct, copying, distributing and/or modifying.
Each is specifically allowed. There are additional restrictions
place on distribution and modification, but none on copying for
other purposes (such as use on different computer by the same
owner).

In that case, the GPL would be a legal nullity. You could make copies
without invoking the GPL, and someone else could distribute those
copies (not in the legal sense, but in the sense of give them away)
under first sale rights. But the GPL doesn't say that, and so it
doesn't mean that.

When you give them to "someone else", you distribute them.

No. That is not true. You can say it as many times as you want and it
will still be false. There are only two legal positions on this issue
and neither of them is yours. One is that "distribution" requires a
work fixed in a physical medium that is exchanged. That does not
support your view. The other is that "copying" already includes
transferring the copy. That does not support your view.

As far as I can tell, you are the only person who argues that
"distributing" is an additional thing over copying even when no
physical object is exchanged. I can find nobody else who shares that
view. And it conflicts with 17 USC 109 (which grants the right to
transfer a lawfully-created licensed copy without conflicting with the
distribution right).

"Give them away" is, in any sense you want, legal or otherwise,
a distribution and *requires* compliance with the GPL. That is
true whether you make the copy and give it to "someone else", or
whether it is the "someone else".

No. Transfers of lawfully-acquired licensed copies are permitted by law
and not part of the rights exclusively reserved to copyright holders.

The GPL requires you to accompany the copy with either the source or
the offer. That's what section 3 says.

You have made some of the most abjectly absurd claims I've ever
seen, but this one is the most ridiculous of them all. Until I
saw that I thought you were just seriously mistaken. But that
level of silliness suggests you are trolling. Nobody could be
that... (Could you????)

I am dead serious. You must accompany binaries with source. (I don't
mean literally on the same storage medium necessarily, but you
certainly can't give a person the binary and refuse him the source if
he asks for it.)

DS

.

Quantcast