🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: comp.arch
Article #23079

Re: GPL and NDAs

#23079
From: Stefaan A Eeckels
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:00
48 lines
2926 bytes
In article <38956745.91D9FB3@quiotix.com>,
	"Jeffrey B. Siegal" <jbs@quiotix.com> writes:
> Greg Lindahl wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Actually, I agree with this completely.  It is others on this thread who seem
> to believe that transfer of ownership is somehow essential to distribution. 
> It isn't.
I'm trying to understand here, so allow me a few questions.
1. If distribution doesn't require a transfer of ownership, even an
immaterial thing like a tarball, does that mean that me asking
an agent to use a program implies distribution?
2. Does the fact that the agent did not initiate nor participate in
the "distribution" as such (ie he received a complete tool, that
contains GPL'ed executables, but he isn't necessarily aware of
that fact) make a difference?
3. Is the fact that I did not intend to distribute somehow make a
difference?
4. Does it matter that the GPL'ed binaries are on a machine that
doesn't belong to the agent?
5. Does it matter that the person is an agent, and not someone
who buys, leases, rents something?
6. Finally, does someone borrowing my machine imply that I'm
implicitly distributing the software it contains to him?

>> Likewise, "fair use" may override that
>> license. Signing has nothing to do with that.
> 
> No, fair use clearly applies to the owner of a copy, and copyright law clearly
> allows copies to be licensed rather than sold.  The only real question with
> these licenses comes into play when the alleged license is a shrink wrap
> "executed" after the sale has already occurred.  There is nothing illegal or
> unenforcable about a license rather than sale transaction.
Wasn't there a ruling that states that when one buys something
that is presented like a product (say a boxed CD with MS-Windows),
it is effectively a sale, and not a license? 

Thanks,

-- 
Stefaan
-- 
--PGP key available from PGP key servers (http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/)--
Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules:
        The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of
the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
Technical Details
Message-ID: <8740cg$6l2$1@justus.ecc.lu>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mail
References: <38954051.92D4CB93@quiotix.com> <873jdp0b1i@news1.newsguy.com> <38956745.91D9FB3@quiotix.com>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,92d97b78a13510de
X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public
X-Google-Thread: 102b75,6e7c0786c7ba904e
X-Google-Attributes: gid102b75,public
From: Stefaan.Eeckels@ecc.lu (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: GPL and NDAs
Date: 2000/01/31
Message-ID: <8740cg$6l2$1@justus.ecc.lu>
X-Deja-AN: 579921693
References: <38954051.92D4CB93@quiotix.com> <873jdp0b1i@news1.newsguy.com> <38956745.91D9FB3@quiotix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: E.C.C. sa - Computer Consultants
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.arch,gnu.misc.discuss