On Sun, 02 May 2004, Raul Miller wrote: > > Can you point me at some jurisdiction where such copying is > > disallowed?
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 05:05:15PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > I have been told that the UK is one such jurisdiction, but I'm by no > means expert (or even versed) in UK law. > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg00760.html > > talks about it a bit. Hmm... not much to go on. The only hint I see in the UK copyright law on how it deals with the routine copies which are necessary to use a file on a computer appears in Chapter VI (Presumptions). Here, it uses the term "copies" to refer to ownership of a computer program: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_7.htm#mdiv105 This language seems to indicate that in the UK, the owner of a computer program has a right to some set of copies. This is entirely supposition, unfortunately. The details aren't spelled out anywhere I can find, but given that "multiple copies" is an accurate representation of what has to be the case in the use of a computer program, I find it easy to believe. However, I haven't been able to find anything in UK copyright law which would cause a problem for the user who has a GFDL licensed document named "file" where they issue the command "chmod 0 file" and the command completes without error. > Jurisdictions with Droit d' auter may be others which don't have a > concept of fair use (or have a limited concept.) I think the presence or absence of "Fair Use" is largely irrelevant in this context. I believe all that's needed is that the country allow people to run legally owned computer programs. However, if there are countries which allow copyright restrictions on use -- where the owner of a program may control how a person uses a program (outside of redistribution) -- then this GFDL license might be a problem. Does anyone know of any such countries? [If we do, they could serve as significant examples in a variety of other contexts as well.] Thanks, -- Raul
