On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 22:10:46 -0400, Bradley wrote in message <[email protected]>:
> But, barring a public performance copyright control, people viewing a > movie that films running copylefted software isn't receiving > distribution, so they have no right to Corresponding Source. ..what happens when the source code is shown on the film screen, clearly performance, but also distribution? It is published, no? ..in the latter case, the source code requirement must be satisfied, as it is shown on the screen. > As someone else mentioned, merely running the program is also > affirmatively unrestricted in GPL. ..and if it's shown running or at all, it's out of the question or case etc too. > I imagine that one could make a legitimate argument that distributing > a filmed copy of some source code (or a binary) is conveying and/or > distributing a non-source form of the Work, and thus GPLv2§3 and > GPLv3§6 kick in, but I think we have a lot more meaningful GPL > violations to chase other than these. :) ..aye, and drawing the meaningless lines here exactly where we want them drawn, means we don't have to fight them drawn elsewhere in the courts. Yes, I too find that silly. ;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.
