> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> This sounds like "much ado about nothing." As is well-known,
> software is not
> an easy fit within copyright doctrine. I am unsure whether there is a
> relevant distinction between "use" and copy as far as software is
> concerned.
> Copyright interests are invoked when one "uses" software as long as the
> prevailing view is that a RAM copy is a *copy* as that terms is
> defined and
> understood by reference to the Copyright Act. Hence, I doubt
> whether an ASP
> or a "web-app" presents a case for a loophole in the GPL.
My understanding was that copyright law allows that copying 'necessary for
normal use' is not considered copying under copyright law.
IANAL, but I'm sure I read this somewhere (in a legal document or quotation,
IIRC)
SamBC
