Date: 06 Apr 2002 09:32:19 -0800 From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: "Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@blarg.net>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Hold Harmless (was: Anti-Unix Site Runs Unix) Message-ID: <68sn6820nw.n68@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <3CADE83A.A6941BF5@mindspring.com> References: <20020402113404.A52321@lpt.ens.fr> <3CA9854E.A4D86CC4@mindspring.com> <20020402123254.H49279@lpt.ens.fr> <009301c1da83$9fa73170$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <15530.6987.977637.574551@guru.mired.org> <3CAAAA98.E9D7EBE6@mindspring.com> <b8vgb8679z.gb8_-_@localhost.localdomain> <3CAB69B8.2817604E@mindspring.com> <wjn0wj5lly.0wj@localhost.localdomain> <3CACFDE5.7EB9FECA@mindspring.com> <g2y9g23i8j.9g2@localhost.localdomain> <3CAD3A14.3C5ED003@mindspring.com> <76it762g2l.t76@localhost.localdomain> <3CADE83A.A6941BF5@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > "Gary W. Swearingen" wrote: > > In the case of 117, the narrower sense doesn't even make sense; > > the section is clearly talking about the programs's > > normal, intended use, at least (whether or not you try to make something > > of it's use of "copy or adaptation"). Furthermore, 117 is only about > > authorizing that copying or adaptation always necessary to use software. > > This is somewhat my point. You keep pointing at 117, as if > it is the correct thing to be looking at regarding licenses, > when what I think you should be looking at is USC on commercial > code, per changes of the DMCA. I point at sections; you point at huge documents. But that's less important. The important thing is that it seems clear to me that there are no licenses involved here FOR THE USE I'M DISCUSSING (running of a copy I own), so license law is unimportant. Do you claim that I can't obtain and own and run a copy of BSD or GPL software without entering into a license contract, specifically under the BSD or GPL, respectively? A yes or no would be nice. > > whatsoever because there is no such exclusive right in usage. People > > need no license to read a book or to level a wobbly table with one. > > If you think there is such a right, please show it to me. > > People own books. You don't own the CDROM on which Microsoft > Office or Windows arrives: Microsoft does. You only own a > license to use. That's because M$ has good lawyers. (I fear that the same has not been true for BSD and FSF.) You do not even own the copies of most M$ software. I absolutely own copies of FreeBSD and Linux and my run them even if I should loose my license on the copyrights in the software. I may not then publish copies or derivatives, but I may run 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). No I'm not; I'm claiming that the producers/publishers/copyright_owners of PD and BSDL and GPL software share some same legal risks as to their liability to damage done by people who run their software without having accepted (or even seen) their license; and even if they saw the license and accepted it, there is no requirement of acceptance of the disclaimer for acceptance of the license. > If you want to discuss the risks to the users, well, there > is always "Risks Digest". 8-). I'll have to think more about that. The risk to users hadn't entered my mind except if they subsequently become licensors themselves. 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?68sn6820nw.n68>