Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 14:55:46 -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: <3CAF7CF2.A8A84EB4@mindspring.com> References: <20020402113404.A52321@lpt.ens.fr> <3CA9854E.A4D86CC4@mindspring.com> <20020402123254.H49279@lpt.ens.fr> <009301c1da83$9fa73170$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <15530.6987.977637.574551@guru.mired.org> <3CAAAA98.E9D7EBE6@mindspring.com> <b8vgb8679z.gb8_-_@localhost.localdomain> <3CAB69B8.2817604E@mindspring.com> <wjn0wj5lly.0wj@localhost.localdomain> <3CACFDE5.7EB9FECA@mindspring.com> <g2y9g23i8j.9g2@localhost.localdomain> <3CAD3A14.3C5ED003@mindspring.com> <76it762g2l.t76@localhost.localdomain> <3CADE83A.A6941BF5@mindspring.com> <68sn6820nw.n68@localhost.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Gary W. Swearingen" wrote: > Do you claim that I can't obtain and own and run a copy of BSD or GPL > software without entering into a license contract, specifically under > the BSD or GPL, respectively? A yes or no would be nice. This depends on the publisher. If the publisher retains ownership of the media, then no, you can't. > > People own books. You don't own the CDROM on which Microsoft > > Office or Windows arrives: Microsoft does. You only own a > > license to use. > > That's because M$ 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. Yes. It's amusing that the GPL attempts (in section 4) to revoke the license under certain conditions of non-compliance. This is similar to the UCB attempt to revoke the license in the ditribution of the Net/2 code, as part of the settlement with USL: such grants involving purchaser media ownership are non-revokable. UCSD had (moderately) smarter lawyers. The license to the UCSD P-code system *was* revokable, and, when they thought they might be able to get money out of it, they in fact revoked it (someone finally rewrote it and called it "JVM"). Apple was left as the only one standing, with a non-revokable license, since they had negotiated seperately for terms. So an ordered list of lawyers would place Apple's before UCSD's. 8-). > > 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. This is where new law comes into play. There is no requirement for explicit acceptance of license any longer. The little scrolling "I Accept" windows that Microsoft puts in their products are part their lawyers being smart (in case the DMCA is held to be unconstitutional) and part writing code that ends up being run in many jurisdictions. > > 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. 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?3CAF7CF2.A8A84EB4>