[freeroleplay] Re: GPL 3 and all that
- From: "Jerry Stratton" <jerry@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: freeroleplay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 17:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
> On Sunday 10 April 2005 20:35, Jamie Jensen wrote:
> To add to what Per said, it's because people like Google and
> Amazon have built technology around GPL software, but haven't
> released any of that technology since they don't actually
> distribute anything.
I think they're going to run into a problem there, though--technically,
the only way the GPL has any force is if they're distributing something
that is GPLed.
It is the act of distributing copies that is illegal without a license,
not the act of using something that has been made available.
That is, if I buy a copyrighted book or CD, I don't need a license to read
the book or listen to the CD; nor do I need a license to, for example,
convert the CD's contents to MP3 so I can listen to it in iTunes. The only
reason a license would be needed is if I want to distribute that MP3--that
act of distribution is what the copyright monopoly restricts me from
doing.
In order to bind non-distributors to a license, one of two things needs to
happen:
1) the non-distributor must be convinced to enter a long-term, ongoing,
probably paying relationship with an upriver creator; without this sort of
long-term relationship, what you have is a purchase, not a license, and
sellers are very limited in the ways in which they can restrict what
purchasers do with the things they've purchased (even if, in this case,
the "purchase" is at no cost).
That is, you can't just call it a license; that's what EULA writers are
doing. Even if you call it a license, if it looks like a purchase it is
really a purchase.
2) EULAs have to be made enforceable as licenses on the end user; as I
understand it there are a few states in the United States that have made
EULAs enforceable, but most have not.
I would hope that the FSF does not want to encourage making EULAs
enforceable. That's a very dangerous road to go down. If an end user
agreement from the FSF can force people to make their modifications
public, what is stopping someone like Microsoft to force people not to say
bad things about Microsoft in their EULA? (Believe it or not that clause
is or has been in their EULA; it just isn't enforceable.)
There is no end to the kinds of things EULAs will try to enforce on end
users if they become enforceable.
Jerry
--
http://www.ItIsntMurder.com/
"Give a man a fish, and you've fed him for a day. Teach him to fish, and
you've depleted the lake."--It Isn't Murder If They're Yankees
Other related posts:
