Graham Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Why do you have to be the 'owner' of the copy? Consider, for a > moment, a different scenario. You borrow from a library a book > containing a work which has passed into the public domain. Although > you have not become the 'owner' of the work, you are legally > entitled (under copyright law) to transcribe the work and create a > copy. You then become the 'owner' of the copy you created.
That's because the copyright has ceased: the contents of the book are no longer subject to the protection of copyright law. > Why is a GPL'd program any different? Because its copyright has not ceased. > The copyright owner has, under the terms of the GPL, given > permission for copies to be made as long as certain conditions are > met. This permission is bound to actual copies. >From the GPL: 0. [...] Each licensee is addressed as "you". This makes explicit that the GPL is valid only for licensees. You can't become a licensee without acquiring a physical copy: that's what copyright covers. > These conditions do not mention being the legal owner of work which > is copied, What about "licensee" don't you understand? > just that source code must be made available (by one of the 3 > mechanisms stated), that the copy and any derivative works must be > subject to the same licence, and that no extra conditions be > added. The preamble of GPL2 states "to make sure the software is > free for all its USERS" (my emphasis). Is this not saying that it is > the user of the software, not just the 'owner' of the copy, that has > the rights outlined in the GPL? The GPL could state no such thing even if it wanted to. Its reach is to the owners of copies. > So surely, all that is required is legal access to a copy not legal > ownership of the copy. The ink manufacturer can't grant people access to my letters, and the GPL software manufacturer can't grant people access to my software media. Once I pass copies on into separate ownership, I can only do so under the GPL (or the default provisions of copyright law). But internal use does not amount to that. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
