Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 10:08:58 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@blarg.net> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Hold Harmless (was: Anti-Unix Site Runs Unix) Message-ID: <3CADE83A.A6941BF5@mindspring.com> References: <20020402113404.A52321@lpt.ens.fr> <3CA9854E.A4D86CC4@mindspring.com> <20020402123254.H49279@lpt.ens.fr> <009301c1da83$9fa73170$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <15530.6987.977637.574551@guru.mired.org> <3CAAAA98.E9D7EBE6@mindspring.com> <b8vgb8679z.gb8_-_@localhost.localdomain> <3CAB69B8.2817604E@mindspring.com> <wjn0wj5lly.0wj@localhost.localdomain> <3CACFDE5.7EB9FECA@mindspring.com> <g2y9g23i8j.9g2@localhost.localdomain> <3CAD3A14.3C5ED003@mindspring.com> <76it762g2l.t76@localhost.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Gary W. Swearingen" wrote: > Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > > "Gary W. Swearingen" wrote: > > > > > > There are no such rights FOR SOFTWARE in the 17USC106 "Exclusive > > > rights..." list and I've read quite a bit on the subject and have never > > > seen anyone show any evidence for such rights for software. The FSF, > > > for instance, is clear to note that the GPL doesn't cover "use". The > > > BSDL's mention of "use" is moot, AFAIK. > > > > No. The GPL incorrectly uses the word "use" when they mean > > "utilize". > > Well, the reason I used "use" instead of 17USC117's "utilize", is > because the two terms should almost always be expected to mean the same > thing to readers, even if "utilize" CAN have have a slightly narrower > meaning to the writer. Heh. Readers are wrong, lawyers are right. > In the case of 117, the narrower sense doesn't even make sense; > the section is clearly talking about the programs's > normal, intended use, at least (whether or not you try to make something > of it's use of "copy or adaptation"). Furthermore, 117 is only about > authorizing that copying or adaptation always necessary to use software. This is somewhat my point. You keep pointing at 117, as if it is the correct thing to be looking at regarding licenses, when what I think you should be looking at is USC on commercial code, per changes of the DMCA. > This use (and utilization :) of a copyrighted work requires no license > whatsoever because there is no such exclusive right in usage. People > need no license to read a book or to level a wobbly table with one. > If you think there is such a right, please show it to me. People own books. You don't own the CDROM on which Microsoft Office or Windows arrives: Microsoft does. You only own a license to use. > The GPL actually doesn't even use "use" in this context. It says: > > Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not > covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of > running the Program is not restricted, That's correct. The GPL fails to apply the word correctly, just like it fails to correctly apply the word "liberty", when the meaning it really intends is "libre", or, applied to software, not "free software", but "liberated software". The problem that exact word usage poses in the GPL case is that there are negative connotations that they want to avoid, while obtaining the positive (in their opinion) denotations, without actually using the correct words. So instead, they use a word which means "gratis" instead of "libre", and then attempt to redefine it so that it means "libre". > It's only claiming to license copyrights and nothing else, like running > the software, which many too-broadly refer to as "use". I expect you > to infer what I mean by it from the context of this thread which has had > nothing to do with copying, distribution, and modification -- copyrights. > It has been about the legal risks of allowing people to run software > which they may legally do without need of license. Even the die-hard > GPL advocates I've discussed this with admit that GPL software may be > run without license; they're even quite proud of the fact. Actually, the issue I was attempting to address when I made the statement that there should be a statuatory "hold harmless" for for software placed in the public domain, is that of the legal risks *to the authors* of the software. You're trying to turn this around to apply to the users, and, in this case, the users are irrelelvent to the interpretation (they're not irrelevent to the situation: it is they who pose the risk to the authors). > I won't take the time to address your other points today. Please let me > know if you'd like me to do it this weekend. We've both probably > stopped learning from it and there's no evidence others are either. If we could drag this back on track, to the risk to the authors, then it would be a more useful discussion in the context of this list. If you want to discuss the risks to the users, well, there is always "Risks Digest". 8-). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3CADE83A.A6941BF5>