[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GNU License, Again
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: GNU License, Again |
Date: |
Wed, 30 May 2007 01:13:55 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux) |
Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Anyway, you are aware that a software license does not govern a work,
>> but a transaction transferring a particular copy?
>
> Software is literary work. A copyright licensee governs rights (modulo
> limitations) regarding (protected elements in) work. One doesn't need
> to be an owner of a copy in order to become a party to a copyright
> license.
>
> One can reproduce works (and do other things reserved to copyright
> owners like for example public performance) from brain's memory.
Copyright does not provide a license for doing so. The decisive
factor here is _not_ the work, but rather the _copying_ process
through the brains memory. As an example, in the software world, a
"cleanroom process" is often employed where one team assembles a
description of software, and another, different one, implements from
that description. Copyright is granted for the output of a creative
process, and for the resulting representation. If that cleanroom
process happens to reproduce the same structures/algorithms/idioms by
_chance_, then the _identical_ work is not restricted by copyright.
So it is clear that copyright is, indeed, bound to actual copies of a
work, copies that save time and work for a creative process leading to
a unique expression. Even though these copies might happen through
memory.
>> That is the reason that the same software can be licensed under
>> different licenses,
>
> More bullshit. Those are simply different contracts (offers) all
> governing rights in the same work.
Where is the contradiction?
> A would-be licensee simply has a choice to become a party to any of
> those license contracts that the work is licensed under.
Uh no. I was not talking about multiple-license models where the
licensee can freely choose. You can, for example, license the same
software binary-only for a fixed price, GPL for a larger price, and
BSD-licensed for an even larger price. Those are different products.
There are a few outlets that do multiple licensings in similar style.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- Re: GNU License, Again, (continued)
- Re: GNU License, Again, mike3, 2007/05/27
- Re: GNU License, Again, David Kastrup, 2007/05/28
- Re: GNU License, Again, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2007/05/28
- Message not available
- Re: GNU License, Again, David Kastrup, 2007/05/28
- Re: GNU License, Again, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2007/05/28
- Message not available
- Re: GNU License, Again, David Kastrup, 2007/05/28
- Re: GNU License, Again, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2007/05/28
- Message not available
- Re: GNU License, Again, David Kastrup, 2007/05/28
- Re: GNU License, Again, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/05/29
- Re: GNU License, Again,
David Kastrup <=
- Message not available
- Re: GNU License, Again, Richard Tobin, 2007/05/28
- Re: GNU License, Again, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2007/05/28
- Message not available
- Re: GNU License, Again, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/05/29
- Message not available
- Re: GNU License, Again, none, 2007/05/28
- Re: GNU License, Again, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2007/05/28
- Re: GNU License, Again, Koh Choon Lin, 2007/05/28
- Message not available
- Re: GNU License, Again, mike3, 2007/05/27
- Message not available
- Re: GNU License, Again, mike3, 2007/05/27
- Re: GNU License, Again, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2007/05/28
- Re: GNU License, Again, none, 2007/05/24