[PLUG] The lion in Salem

[Derek Loree]

On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 14:37, Jeme A Brelin wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 12:22:48PM -0700, Cliff Wells wrote:
> > > >  The bureaucratic paperwork involved in installing
> > > > one simple piece of software on a State computer is... uh,
> > > > interesting.

Is this paper work required if no funds were needed to acquire the
software?  How about if the software was purchased under a blanket
license (I think M$ will sell you a multi-million dollar license that
will allow you to install all of their software on all of your
machines)?

> > >
> > > Which make unlicensed copies (which don't require paperwork) all the
> > > more appealing ;)
> >
> > I don't see too much public domain software out there.  Just because the
> > GPL allows free redistribution doesn't mean it's not licensed.
> 
> The GPL is not a license to USE software, however.  

The GPL does cover _use_, near the end of version 2 there is whole
section defining your limitations of use.  It says that you can use the
software, but you can't hold the author liable for what the software
does or doesn't do, or for your inability to figure out how to use and
repair the software.



> You are not required
> to have a license to USE anything that you have purchased.

Not true, most software has an End User License Agreement (sometimes
located in a file called "copyright") which the user has to agree to
before _using_ the software.  The GPL may be incorporated into the EULA
(or the copyright -- the two seem interchangeable at this point), but
there can be more to it than just that. 

The most common example of a EULA that we see is when renting
proprietary software. FrontPage comes to mind; you must agree not to
create content that is negative toward the M$ spiderweb.  This is
obviously a restriction on the use of the software.  There is usually
some phrase about "no reverse engineering", too.  This is another
restriction on the use of the software.

The limitation imposed by the GPL is the responsibility of _using_ the
software.  You can't sue anybody if your use of the software causes you
or any one else any harm.  Most proprietary software has the same
limitation.

>   You don't need
> a license to read a book you've bought or give it to somebody else, loan
> it out, xerox it at 300% to read from across the room, or sell it when
> you're finished.  None of those things are exclusive rights to a copyright
> holder and therefore none of them require a license from the copyright
> holder to exercise.

This is only because of the particular copyright that the author chose,
or was forced to choose.  I haven't published anything, but I bet that
the publishers force the authors to use the standard copyright: "All
rights reserved.  Reproductions of any kind must have permission from
the author."  I know that this standard doesn't hold up in court (which
is how you got the right to blow it up 300%), but it is still used.
> 
> However, distribution of copies IS an exclusive right of the copyright
> holder and that right must be confered to you via license in order for you
> to exercise it.
> 
> The GPL is a distribution license.  You don't need to agree to the GPL to
> USE GPL software, only to redistribute it.

I disagree.  To quote the GPL version 2 "Activities other than copying,
distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are
outside its scope."  However, Sections 11 and 12 seems to cover the
_use_ limitations as well.

Seems to me that the modification part is very important too.  The GPL
is definitely restrictive when it comes to modifying software.  You have
to document your changes, and you can't claim the entire work as your
own.

That is my interpretation, anyway.

Derek Loree