🚀 go-pugleaf

"Jeffrey B. Siegal" <jbs@quiotix.com> writes:
> Greg Lindahl wrote:
> > > If transfer of ownership is required for GPL, then GPL is dead.
> > 
> > The GPL doesn't use mealy-mouthed language trying to circumvent "fair
> > use". There is no problem with this.
> 
> You miss the point.

No, I violently disagree.

> If GPL only applies given a transfer of ownership, then
> modified software doesn't need to be distributed under GPL at all, because it
> can be distributed *under a different license* without transfer of ownership. 

No. You're barking up the wrong tree. "Transfer of ownership" is
unimportant and irrelevant in all cases, so it doesn't matter if the
GPL does or doesn't apply given transfer of ownership. What matters is
that a copy is distributed.

> If you think right-to-use shrink-wrap licenses are an invalid attempt to
> circumvent fair use, fine.  Just assume that the right-to-use license is a
> written, signed (or digitally executed) license, not a shrink-wrap.  I don't
> think anyone would argue that real written right-to-use licenses are invalid. 

But they are still distribution, as defined by the GPL (and US
law). You're chasing the tooth fairy. If you were a judge writing a
legal opinion, people might pay attention to you. But you aren't.

BTW, it's not that "written right to use licenses" are all invalid.
It's that they might contain invalid clauses. If my signed Virginia
lease for my apartment contains a clause which states that I pay a 10%
penalty if I am 1 day late, then that clause is invalid because of the
Virginia Lanlord/Tenant act. Likewise, "fair use" may override that
license. Signing has nothing to do with that.

I like the Oxford University Library website. It contains a
click-through "contract" before you view images, which has you
acknowledge that they have copyright of the image you're about to
view. Well, it doesn't mean anything, because the image is a facsimile
of 600+ year old documents. Wishing doesn't make it so.

-- g