On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 12:27:56AM -0500, Paul Smith wrote: > %% [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > dv> On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 01:08:46PM -0500, Paul Smith wrote: > >> %% Dominik Vogt <fvwm-workers@fvwm.org> writes: > >> > >> >> But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which > >> >> is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must > >> >> be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other > >> >> licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every > >> >> part regardless of who wrote it. > > dv> As I quoted above, it touches only what is in the scope of the > dv> GPL. It does *not* restrict adding licenses for what is *outside* > dv> of its scope. > > I don't agree. The GPL explicitly says that the code must be released > under the GPL, full stop. There is no exception that allows you to add > any extra terms or conditions as long as they don't conflict with the > terms and conditions in the GPL... in fact the GPL specifically forbids > "sublicensing".
It's not sublicensing. The GPL is not at all affected by certain types of license. The GPL states *explicitly* that it only licenses copying, modifying and distributing the software, nothing else. Licensing for any other action is not covered and thus the license is determined by the laws for them. > The license also _explicitly_ says that "The act of running the Program > is not restricted". That statement is more or less devoid of meaning. It just says that the GPL does not limit the right to run the software, but it neither *gives* you that right. It must come from somewhere else. > So you cannot add a restriction on running the program that does not > directly contradict the terms of the GPL, and you must release the > derivative under the terms of the GPL. I think that is wrong. *If* I can not limit the right to run a software, it is not because of the GPL but because of laws. [snip] > >> Licenses which _REMOVE_ freedoms that copyright law would normally > >> allow, such as most EULAs etc. and the license you are proposing, > >> _must_ be agreed to in some affirmative way. Otherwise they can > >> simply not agree to your license and use the product as allowed by > >> copyright. Using a product you own for the purposes which it was > >> designed is definitely not violating a copyright. > > dv> My point of view is: the GPL does not grant anybody the right to > dv> *run* the software. By doing so, you break the law. > > Copyright covers only certain activities: modification, redistribution, > _public_ performances, translation to another language, etc. > > Consider: when you buy a book at the store you do not have to have a > special license to _read_ that book; you won't find any language in any > book that explicitly gives you that right. Similarly, if you buy a CD > you don't need a license to allow you to listen to it. But we are not talking about buying or selling a product. If we sold fvwm, then the act of selling would imply the right for the buyer to use what she bought. But we don't sell fvwm and thus the legal framework of the selling/buying transaction do not apply. Bye Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
