David Kastrup wrote: > > Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> Forget it, Hyman. You've thrown Terekhov into quote mode. He'll just > >> respond by citing increasingly erratically selected texts at you, > >> followed by "LOL" and similar pieces of wisdom. It's his standard way > >> of being out of wits. Somewhat annoying, but what do you expect? > > > > He's quoting a post of mine on Slashdot. Could you be so kind as to > > tell me where you think I'm wrong in that post? > > The quote is just irrelevant to the pertinent question.
I've quoted it in response to Hyman Rosen's post stating that ------- You failed to read the Terms and Conditions, where you would have seen this: To "modify" a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission... To "propagate" a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law... So the license says that if you want to do something that copyright law would stop you from doing, the only way to do that is to accept the license. If copyright law lets you do something, then that action is not covered by the defined terms "modify" and "propagate", and you don't need the license to give you that permission anyway. ------- So here we go again: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=599485&cid=24004153 (AGPL is pointless (Score:4, Interesting)) ------ by harlows_monkeys (106428) on Monday June 30, @01:59PM (#24004153) Homepage I'm going to use US copyright law in this comment, but I believe other countries have similar provisions. US copyright law says that the owner of a particular copy of a program can make modifications to the program in order to adapt it for use on his machine, without violating copyright. The case law has interpreted this to include modifications beyond just what is necessary to make the program run--it includes adding features if those features are necessary for what you are trying to use the program for. See 17 USC 117 [cornell.edu] for the statute itself. Section 9 of AGPL says this: You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so. But what is modifying? That is defined in section 0: To "modify" a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an exact copy. The resulting work is called a "modified version" of the earlier work or a work "based on" the earlier work. Because of 17 USC 117, and the interpretation of the scope of that in the case law, most use of AGPL software in a software as a service environment will NOT involve "modifying" the software as defined by AGPL, and you won't be required to make your changes available. ------ Could you be so kind as to tell me why you think that it was "increasingly erratically" to cite this post in response to Hyman Rosen's post and what "pertinent question" are you talking about? regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss