Isaac wrote: [...] > No it does not quite boil down to that. What it boils down to is whether > the GPL grants permission to so mix the software at home as long as > you do not distribute the combination.
The GPL (or any other license) just can't grant something that doesn't fall under exclusive rights of copyright owners. It can restrict something (subject to contract existence and regulations concerning invalid contract terms), but not grant. An "owner" of a copy can copy and adapt (modify) under 17 USC 117. No grant is required. And even with existence of a contract (and rather silly language "no title"/"is licensed, not sold"), 17 USC 117 bars cause of action for copyright infringement, says UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/039303p.pdf </quote> Several considerations militate against interpreting § 117(a) to require formal title in a program copy. First, whether a party possesses formal title will frequently be a matter of state law. See 2 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 8.08[B][1] (stating that copy ownership arises presumably under state law). The result would be to undermine some of the uniformity achieved by the Copyright Act. The same transaction might be deemed a sale under one states law and a lease under anothers. If § 117(a) required formal title, two software users, engaged in substantively identical transactions might find that one is liable for copyright infringement while the other is protected by § 117(a), depending solely on the state in which the conduct occurred. Such a result would contradict the Copyright Acts express objective of creating national, uniform copyright law by broadly preempting state statutory and common- law copyright regulation. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 740 (1989); see also 17 U.S.C. § 301(a). Second, it seems anomalous for a user whose degree of ownership of a copy is so complete that he may lawfully use it and keep it forever, or if so disposed, throw it in the trash, to be nonetheless unauthorized to fix it when it develops a bug, or to make an archival copy as backup security. We conclude for these reasons that formal title in a program copy is not an absolute prerequisite to qualifying for § 117(a)s affirmative defense. Instead, courts should inquire into whether the party exercises sufficient incidents of ownership over a copy of the program to be sensibly considered the owner of the copy for purposes of § 117(a). The presence or absence of formal title may of course be a factor in this inquiry, but the absence of formal title may be outweighed by evidence that the possessor of the copy enjoys sufficiently broad rights over it to be sensibly considered its owner. </quote> regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
