[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: More FSF hypocrisy

From: Thufir Hawat
Subject: Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:17:31 GMT
User-agent: Pan/0.132 (Waxed in Black)

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:05:53 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:

> When an end user gets a copy of a commercial software program from a
> warez site or just by borrowing a DVD from the office or a friend, that
> is not true.  That end user is not authorized to use the software and
> the copyright owner can take some sort of action to get compensation, if
> only to nag the user constantly via some means.  That is what it says in
> the EULA.
> That is what is different about the GPL, I think, namely that the end
> user arrives at the same endpoint condition and the copyright owner is
> in the same condition regardless of the way that the software is
> conveyed.

Going with the Verizon example, I disagree.  When the end user received 
the binaries there was no GPL notice, so I see how the EU is bound by the 
GPL.  OTOH, that binary was no more legit than a borrowed DVD.

>  If there were a black box connecting the copyright owner to
> the end user, you could not ever say just what was in the box, only that
> some mechanism existed for conveying the software from the owner to the
> user.
> After conveying the license to use the software to the end user, the GPL
> goes on and on about what is allowed to be in the black box.  I don't
> think that the courts really care.  They can only assess what variance
> there may be in the condition of the copyright owner based on what
> happens in the black box and, if there is no measurable effect, there
> can be no corrective action taken or compensation awarded.

Could the end user in receipt of the Verizon router end up owing 
copyright fines?  Well, only if the binary were illegitimate.  So, if an 
EU started distributing that binary, I think there would be consequences.


reply via email to

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