On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 09:18:30 +0100, Neil wrote in message <[email protected]>:
> > On 10 Aug 2013, at 02:31, Jerome Leclanche <[email protected]> wrote: > > > What are the implications of GPL-licensed code being used in a > > purely cosmetic way in commercial products (such as hollywoodish > > hacking scenes)? > > None at all, that I can think of — the GPL does not impose any > conditions on merely running a program, and, in my view, the spirit > of the GPL would extend this to running it and filming it being run. > There is not act of distribution or conveyance here. ..compare the right hand side third of http://i.imgur.com/gw9a0Cg.jpg with http://www.peculiarities.com/code/mac.html before you jump to such conclusions, showing code snippets to people in a public movie theater, _is_ indeed "an act of publishing it." ;o) ..now, there's also the fair use clause, is this a parody etc, and is this wee flash of code any bit useful to the paying public? ;o) > It might be quite good publicity, though? ..depends on whether it's a good movie, good context in a bad movie, pettyness in hawking copyright enforcement, e.g. Darl McBride didn't enjoy http://groklaw.net/ coverage much, but it also gave rise to airshow like enjoyment of litigation tactics that could make great movies. :o) > > Neil > > __________ > > Neil Brown > [email protected] | http://neilzone.co.uk -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case.
