Re: Re: Licensing problem in winstaller

Roger Hayter wrote:

> In message <20050520185935.GA29422-EI5O+8PHWbJeeLb3ft/[email protected]>, Matthew 
> Toseland <toad-EI5O+8PHWbJeeLb3ft/[email protected]> writes
>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 05:12:47PM +0100, Theodore Hong wrote:
>>
>>> Matthew Toseland wrote:
>>> >Under UK law almost any time you copy a file is a copyright 
>>> infringement
>>> >unless you have explicit permission or are covered by one of the
>>> >incredibly narrow exceptions. There is no real "fair use", in the
>>> >american sense. I might argue that in the UK it is necessary to accept
>>> >the GPL in order to use GPL'd software.
>>>
>>> If so, that's interesting.  The GPL still seems insufficient, though,
>>> since nothing in it actually gives you the right to use anything.
>>
>>
>> I don't see why you can't use it. The GPL lets you copy it all you like
>> - including copying it into RAM and onto the hard disk.
>>
>>>
>>> What is the difference in the user's rights between software that comes
>>> with no usage license at all and software that comes with an EULA?  
>>> Does
>>> it make a difference if you somehow run EULA'd software in such a way
>>> that you never see the EULA?  (Ignore for the moment all the
>>> reverse-engineering and by-opening-this-box stuff, suppose the program
>>> came in a form where running the installer showed you the license but
>>> you could run the program directly without using the installer at all.)
>>
>>
>> Such as if you were running it under WineX/Cedega before they
>> implemented the HTML control. :) I don't know really.
>>
>>>
>>> theo
>>
>
>
> There's no law that says only a licence or information included with 
> the software gives you any rights.  The fact that this mailing list, 
> the web site and many other sources contain statements from the 
> developers that Freenet is intended for public use would seem quite 
> enough for any court to go on!  I doubt if you could successfully sue 
> me for copyright infringement just for using the software even without 
> any included licence.

In the US at least, "Fair use" has always included making copys needed 
for the functioning of a program of web page. This was made explicit in 
1992 I believe. The same law also explicitly legalized ISP's caching 
content of public web pages, which had been done previously and never 
was challenged.

So the original poster is correct, in the US at least (and I suspect 
most European countrys as well) you can use the program by virtue of 
having a legal copy, but you may not redistribute it. The whole 
redistribution applet is a gray aria. Frankly I think we could have it 
ether way we want, say "you must agree to the GPL to enable this 
function" or "This is part of how the program works, and so you don't 
have to agree to anything.". Realistically I can't imagine anyone not 
accepting the GPL because it does not restrict them from doing anything 
they would not otherwise be able to do. However I agree with the 
original poster, that we should emphasize this. We could of course, not 
present a license agreement, and just include the text of the GPL, as it 
states in the license itself, you will be considered to have accepted it 
is you use any of the additional rights it grants you.

_______________________________________________
chat mailing list
[email protected]
Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat
Or mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe