Hi Branden Robinson,
> On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 03:22:27AM +0200, Nicolas Kratz wrote:
>> On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 12:22:31PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
>> > There is a very simple rule of thumb you haven't grokked: If you haven't
>> > been granted the permission to do something covered by copyright law in
>> > the licence then you don't have that permission. Once you realise this it
>> > will be easy to identify some licenses as not being DFSG-free.
>>
>> Cha-CHING! Thanks a whole lot, that was indeed an important - and
>> missing - piece of the puzzle. So, unless I can persuade the copyright
>> holder to relicense, no go.
>
> In my opinion Adam Warner overstated the case a little bit, though. The
> scope of copyright law is not defined as "all human activity". Strictly
> speaking, in the U.S. anyway, it is pretty much limited to the
> distribution of copies ("copy-right") of an original, creative work,
> whether in its original form or a modified version (which may be a
> "derivative work").
>
> That said, many jurisdictions in the world, and many copyright cartel
> lobbying groups, tend to interpret copyright law as forbidding
> modification of works even for private purposes (no more highlighting
> your textbooks or watching that DVD in a Linux-based computer!), and
> also tend to regard possession of self-made copies of the work in
> quantity as a priori evidence of intend to distribute infringing
> materials (want to make two "archival copies" instead of one -- go
> directly to jail!).
This is a good clarification. However if you recheck what I wrote above
you'll see I specifically mentioned "permission to do something covered by
copyright law". I had in mind the activities covered by copyright law like
distribution of copies, derived works, etc.
Regards,
Adam
