Raul Miller wrote: > On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 03:31:49PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: >> Not all jurisdictions have a concept of fair use, so licenses which >> rely upon such a concept generally are not free. > > Ah, this is key. > > I'm need to understand how it's possible to have copyright on computer > programs in such a jurisdiction -- any copyright which restricts > unauthorized copying, such as almost any commercial program, would seem > to be unusable in that kind of jurisdiction.
There may be an explicit right to to make transitory copies a program solely as part of the course of normal use of the program. Which is very narrow. Or you may need a license to copy, and your EULA may grant the right to copy solely for that purpose. <snip> > Hmm... > > There seem to be two ways of reading §3: > > The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must > allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license > of the original software. > > In one reading, the license must allow all modifications and derived > works to be distributed, and §4 is an exception. > > In another reading, the license must allow some modifications and derived > works to be distributed, and §4 is an additional constraint. In another reading, the license must allow most modifications and derived works to be distributed, with possible exceptions. Section 4 can be an exception or a constraint; your choice. :-) There are additional implied exceptions; derived works can be required to carry accurate attribution, for instance. Since these are "guidelines", and since they don't contain phrases like "All" and "100%", but also don't contain phrases like "Some" or "A few", this seems like the right interpretation. > > This is an interesting ambiguity. > Indeed. -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
