Re: GPL and other licences

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   Stefaan A Eeckels <hoendech@ecc.lu> writes:

   > You got it wrong. By giving you his property (the lawful copy of the
   > software) for the purposes of your job, you have not lawfully acquired
   > (become owner) of a copy, and hence you have no rights. The fact that
   > you have access to the copy (you hold the CD your employer handed you
   > for the purposes of installing it on one of their computers, which you
   > are allowed to use but do not own) does not mean that you are the owner
   > of that copy, and it is the ownership of that copy (on whatever medium)
   > that gives you certain rights. Now ownership, no rights. 

   Why do you have to be the 'owner' of the copy? Consider, for a moment,
   a different scenario. You borrow from a library a book containing a
   work which has passed into the public domain. Although you have not
   become the 'owner' of the work, you are legally entitled (under
   copyright law) to transcribe the work and create a copy. You then
   become the 'owner' of the copy you created. 

Very nice example, but lets make it a bit more specific to the
discussion at hand.  I borrow a CD from the library with GPLed
software.  I'm not the owner of the CD.  AFAIU according to David
(feel free to correct me), since I am not the owner of the CD, I am
not allowed to recive a license, and thus am not allowed to even use
the content in any way or form other than how the library wants me to
use it.

Clearly, this is absurd by any and all means.  Why?  I lawfully
recived a copy of the GPLed software, and by the GPL I now have
recived an license (if I choose to accept it) to copy, modify and
redistribute the software.  If there is a differently licensed program
on it, then this license applies of course.

Cheers.