Date: 05 Apr 2002 09:47:14 -0800 From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Hold Harmless (was: Anti-Unix Site Runs Unix) Message-ID: <76it762g2l.t76@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <3CAD3A14.3C5ED003@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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. 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 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.
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,
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.
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.
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?76it762g2l.t76>