[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GPL and other licences

From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
Subject: Re: GPL and other licences
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 10:30:28 +0000

On Sun, 2006-02-05 at 11:06 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>    >    Sad, but not recognized as distribution. That's why you have to
>    >    "agree" with the common proprietary licenses. They add restrictions
>    >    like "you can only install on one computer, or else no license".
>    >
>    > But according to David (and yourself?) the license does not apply in
>    > this entity, so such restrictions are not relevant.  This is simply
>    > not true.
>    Of course it's not true. What happens is that those licenses add
>    restrictions upon copyright. That's one of the reasons you have to
>    agree: they add restrictions on what you can do as if in a contract
>    (and thus many confuse copyright licenses with contracts,
>    unfortunately).
> Then please explain to me why David is insisting of the opposite.
> That the CD is property, sure, but one cannot put additional
> restrictions on the licensed software on that CD without the
> permission of the copyright holder.  And copyright law still applies,
> so there is no possible way to claim that `since this is internal use
> copyright law doesn't apply'; which is exactly what David is claiming.

I can't explain that since I haven't read most posts on this thread, but
what you describe he's saying seems like an oversimplification of what I
said, and we all know oversimplifications always lead to a certain
degree of confusion.

The thing is that the copyright licenses of software like Microsoft
explicitly say you have to have one license per computer. Now... if they
were only stating copyright law, would they have to do that?

And if that was the law, would you have to click on "I agree"? Doesn't
make a lot of sense. The webs of cultural misappropriation of immaterial
goods reveal plots within plots.

My personal "conspiracy theory" is that "they" want to make access to
knowledge difficult in order to keep vast amounts of people who know no
better than to vote for whoever gives more candy, thus perverting
democracy in order to maintain the power oligopolies.

But I have to admit this is my own private "conspiracy theory" and I
believe everyone has one such.

Maybe Alex'es is that there can be an intellectual property... :)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]