On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:28:43 +0100, TJ wrote in message <[email protected]>:
> On 10/08/13 11:42, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > 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) > > By that logic it would mean that if I were to catch a brief glimpse > of your laptop screen - or projection presentation - as it displayed > a fragment of GPLed source-code that it would be an act of publishing > under §2b ? ..only if I let you watch. If I don't, and you sneak or zoom in etc to see it, your action approaches espionage and theft and is unlicensed and may in some jurisdictions warrant chopping off your head to prevent any further unlicensed publishing. ;o) -- ..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.
