On 15 Dec 2013, at 11:17, Ian Stirling <[email protected]> wrote:
Morning, Ian. >> Unless Alice performs an act restricted by copyright, she does not require a >> licence, and I don't see transferring a product containing embedded software >> as an otherwise infringing act > > This implies 'embedded' software has some special status in law I don't think that this is the case: it implies that, before a licence is required, one perform an act restricted by copyright. To my mind, "distribution", in the sense of me giving you a CD containing software, for example, is not an act restricted by copyright (at least, not in the UK; other laws may differ). See, for example, s16, Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988: > The owner of the copyright in a work has, in accordance with the following > provisions of this Chapter, the exclusive right to do the following acts in > the United Kingdom— > > (a)to copy the work (see section 17); > > (b)to issue copies of the work to the public (see section 18); > > [F1(ba)to rent or lend the work to the public (see section 18A);] > > (c)to perform, show or play the work in public (see section 19); > > [F2(d)to communicate the work to the public (see section 20);] > > (e)to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation to an > adaptation (see section 21); > > and those acts are referred to in this Part as the “acts restricted by the > copyright”. (You can see the whole Act, although probably not in quite its latest form, here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents) Alice has copied nothing, nor issued anything to the public (the manufacturer / initial distributor may well have done), rented/lent nothing, performed nothing, communicated nothing to the public, or made an adaptation. She has simply sold on a vehicle containing software, just as I require no licence to give you my CD of "OK, Computer". Were I to *copy* my CD, and give you that copied CD, then I likely infringe copyright (16(a), 16(b)), but that's a different use case. > the only one with any obligation is the original manufacturer Not just the manufacturer, as they might be supplying on a wholesale basis, rather than retail, and arguably not then responsible for "issuing copies to the public" — the retailer might be responsible for doing that, and thus requiring a licence — but it does not follow that every action involving GPL'd software is subject to the terms of the GPL. > I don't see any basis for this in what I know of copyright law. Hopefully the above has helped a little, but feel free to shout (on here, or off list) if not. Best wishes, Neil __________ Neil Brown [email protected] | http://neilzone.co.uk
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
