"Mahesh T. Pai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian T. Sniffen said on Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:15:12AM -0500,: > > > enumerated in US legislation -- they are alluded to in some laws, and > > mentioned in court cases, but intentionally underspecified. > > 'Law' is what the courts say it is. May be, the US legal system has a > different view of the copyright law.
Different from what? Indian law? Certainly. French law? Absolutely. The US Congress? Well... maybe. > > You fail to distinguish between modification of an instance of a work > > -- such as sawing a book in half, or writing notes in the margins > > -- and > > The person who steals a book is guilty of larceny, not violation of > copyright. I am very surprised that you regard physical destruction > (ok. 'modification' if you want it that way) of the media on which a > copyrighted work is contained as modification for the purpose of > copyright. Hunh? You snipped part of what I said: that there is a difference between modification, which is not affected by copyright, and the preparation of derivative works, which is affected by copyright. Sawing a book in half is clearly modification, not preparation of a derivative work. > > What you say here is exceptionally misleading. > > ??!!?? Well, it is. You seem to be accepting the text of FAQs and summaries as if they were part of the license. > Please re-read http://www.fsf.org/press/mysql-affidavit.html, > paragraph 18. The important words are '...actually _subtracts_ from > the author's usual ...." and "... unilaterally permitted ..." Ah, yes. For example, it says "unilaterally permitted all rights to use, copy, and modify the software". But we know that the GPL does not restrict rights to use the software, so why is Moglen writing this? Perhaps it is that he is writing a summary and an affidavit, not a strict legal document. Similarly, he uses "modify" here in the same shorthand commonly used by computer users and programmers: when I open some source file, make some changes, and write it out under a new name, I say colloquially that I have modified the file. What I have legally done is to create a derivative work of the original source file. > After that, do proceed to read the concluding sentence of para 36. GPL: However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you GPL: under this License will not have their licenses terminated so GPL: long as such parties remain in full compliance. And they can give a copy to anyone else, who then receives a new license. > Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M., Does LL.M. actually stand for something approximating Lawyer? -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
