[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 09:59:58PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: > As FEMM showed, the loss comes about if the new version is distributed > to the exclusion of all previous versions. When FEMM v4 was released, > previous versions slowly disappeared from the berlios mirrors. This > isn't automatic, the project admin has to deliberately remove the old > versions. That's why FEMM v3.x is still hosted on my server, just in > case he tries it again. He's within his rights to delete it, or blow the server up, or whatever. However we've already seen he's breaking copyright law by using code others have supplied. > > Doesn't give me permission, therefore by using it, I'm infringing > > copyright. In no case would the EULA apply to me (the only law to cover > > that would be the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, > > You admit it would infringe copyright, then claim that copyright law > doesn't apply? The EULA is a copyright licence, it is enforceable under > copyright law. The principle purpose of an EULA is to restrict the > copying of the software to prevent unauthorised duplication and > distribution. I'm infringing copyright IF running a computer program is infringment. In no way does the EULA CONTRACT apply to me though, which was my original point. > > If you play a CD to the public, it's counted as an infringment, in black > > and white, in section 18 CDPA1988, same as if you play a tape. > > Or distribute unauthorised copies of a copyrighted work of software. A > copyright infringement that the copyright holder can pursue through the > civil courts. Yes, you don't need a license for private home use, same as you don't need a license for playing a tape > >>> Running software isn't covered by that. > >> It can be. Executing software involves making a copy in memory. That can > >> be specifically prohibited under copyright law - that is one of the > >> features of the non-disclosure agreements for the Windows source code, > >> that it may not be made into an executable form. Those agreements are > >> based on copyright law because no other law applies. > > > > An NDA is just a contract > > But the software available to those who sign such an NDA is also covered > by copyright, automatically. Yes, but that's true if you sign the NDA or not. If I had a copy of the windows source code (say I found a printout on the bus), By reading it I wouldn't be infringing. By discussing it I wouldn't be infringing, I've never signed the NDA > > The code itself isn't copyrighted by the dependencies, it's just code. > > Once you compile it you link it to copyrighted libraries, and you infringe. > > Technically you only infringe the GPL upon distribution, either of the > binaries or the source code - you don't have to compile GPL software to > infringe the GPL. e.g. you don't have to compile the source to try to > change the licence without permission but you do infringe the GPL if you > distribute the code with such a modification. qlogicfas.c in the kernel source code is copyright by Tom Zerucha, and only by him. It links to other files copyrighted by other people, however the source code simply says #include <linux/module.h> So does this email. By distributing the source code he's not infringing copyright (although he might be infringing trademark law as linux is a trademark). The person who then compiles and distributes that code, and links it to the module.h that is copyright Rusty Russell and Richard Henderson, would infringe, but not the original author (unless he compiles and distributes the binary). You can't copyright file names, and the source code doesn't infringe until it's linked with the linux "module.h". > > Well indeed, doesn't make it right (or even legal). That's why I tend to > > prefer using free software, and not agreeing to any licenses (including > > the GPL in almost all cases). > > The GPL applies when you distribute the code - if you don't distribute > the code then you may use GPL software as you please. It's perfectly > legal to make all kinds of modifications to GPL software when that > modified work is kept private. This introduces a new grey area about web > applications which is why GPL3 is awaited so eagerly in some circles. Indeed, the question is if I don't accept the GPL, am I allowed to run the code? Nothing else gives me permission to copy the program (even into memory) > Few people on this list need to actually agree to the GPL. Kai and I Creating "hello world", and linking it to libc, would require you agree to the LGPL though. > Everyone on this list would hopefully agree that they need the > *protection* provided by the GPL and other compatible licences. You > don't have to agree to the GPL personally in order the see the benefits > of using software covered by the GPL. > > > There's nothing in UK law to hold me to that contract. > > Until you distribute GPL software, agreed. Well, I could say I'm distributing without a license, in which case copyright law would apply instead of the GPL (and if I distribute it without agreeuing to the license terms, thats exactly what I'm doing) However nothing else gives me permission to copy the program, including into memory. > >>> I don't feel I'm qualified > >>> to sign a legal contract on behalf of my employer. Other people do, > >>> but that's their choice. > >> You don't have to. Your employer has agreed to the terms and that is all > >> that matters. > > > > So when I install a copy of windows why does it present me with an EULA? > > If your work involves installing windows on behalf of the company, > presumably you register windows in the name of the company - you are > clicking through the EULA on behalf of the company, indeed in their > name. Hence I won't take it on myself to enter into a legal agreement on behalf of my company. > Anyone appointed by the company to install the > copyrighted work is empowered by that company to act on behalf of the > company, including in executing legally binding agreements that are a > necessary and expected part of that work. I haven't been specifically told that I can accept a given contract, and I always play safe when it comes to legal agreements. > street. Nevertheless, a non-IT Plc with a base in Devon has disciplined > at least one employee who sold unauthorised copies in large numbers - > including when the original media was purchased as a private individual. > The activity involved had nothing to do with the job performed by the > employee, except that his job increased the number of possible purchasers. Presumably they argued that it damaged the companies image as people he sold to knew he worked for that company > > PITA, but the GPL is also a PITA (to a lesser extent), but irellevent > > for me > > Maybe, until such time as you distribute GPL software. I don't see how > the GPL is a problem for you though. In what ways does the GPL cause you > problems? I have to read it and understand it. As it's a legal document it's probably useful to get a lawyer involved to explain the legal stuff. Of course as I don't distribute the software, the GPL doens't apply. However I do copy that software, so I) 1) Ageee to the GPL allowing me to make copies of the software 2) Infringe by running the software (and in the process making a transitory copy in memory) IF it's infringment to run(copy) software, then I have no permission to run(copy) software without a license (either an EULA or the GPL, or another license that the copyright holder bestows on me). You might argue that there is implicit permission to run(copy) GPL software, but then why does this permission exist with GPL software but not with non-GPL software? -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html