Subject: Re: Licenses for "Running"
From: Bernard Lang <Bernard.Lang@inria.fr>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:55:34 +0200


if licensing covers only copying ... does it mean that several users
can use the software at the same time, provided there is only one copy
on the machine ?

I must have missed something ?

Bernard

On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 09:38:29PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> on Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 01:13:36PM -0400, Adam Theo (adamtheo@theoretic.com) wrote:
> > hello, all.
> > 
> > just to note, this is cross-posted to both the FSB list at crynwr.com
> > and the Bazaar list at my own theoretic.com (a list for open source
> > 'newbies' that i just began).
> > 
> > i am taking this day to read up on the FSF and GNU's materials on
> > copyright, licensing, etc, to educate myself on exactly what they are.
> > 
> > i have one question right now. i think i understand that copyright, as
> > done by the US Fed Gov't, does nothing for *running* a software, only
> > for making copies of it, correct?
> 
>     17 USC 117 Limitations on exclusive rights:  Computer programs
>     http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
> 
>     (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -
>     Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an
>     infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make
>     or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that
>     computer program provided:
> 
>         (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an
>         essential step in the utilization of the computer program in
>         conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other
>         manner
> 
> In conjunction with 17 USC 106, exclusive rights, operation of a
> computer program is not a reserved right under copyright, and 117
> explicitly allows the copy (an otherwise reservered right) intrinsic in
> most program execution.
> 
> > therefore, proprietary licenses (such as from Microsoft or such), only
> > enforce the fees they charge for being able to make copies of their
> > software, not actually running it on user's computers, correct?
> 
> By licensing code, the theory goes, it's possible to grant access on
> terms other than those governed by copyright.  It's probably best to
> check with the lawyers on this list for specifics.  Most free software
> licenses (and in particular the GPL and LGPL) tend to stick quite close
> to the specific rights and limitations of copyright law.
> 
> IANAL.
> 
> -- 
> Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>    http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
>  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?       There is no K5 cabal
>   http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/         http://www.kuro5hin.org
>    Are these opinions my employer's?  Hah!  I don't believe them myself!



-- 
         Non aux Brevets Logiciels  -  No to Software Patents
           SIGNEZ    http://petition.eurolinux.org/    SIGN

Bernard.Lang@inria.fr             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
            INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
         Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
                 CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX