John Cowan wrote: > Won't work (IANAL, TINLA), at least in the U.S.; any copies of > computer programs that are needed in order to use the program > are specifically non-infringing, by section 117. Normally, > this refers to copying the binary form from disk to core, > but it plainly would cover compiling if that's required. >
That is why the conclusions at MAI vs Peak were such suprising reading: you can have a copy, but not be an owner of that copy, and 17 USC 117 is for persons who own a copy. In MAI vs Peak, it was established that Peak's customers were licensees, not owners of a copy, and 17 USC 117 provided no permission. I am not a lawyer either, and I would not have known about MAI vs Peak unless it was brought up on this list. Should I interpret MAI vs Peak differently? -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3