Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen writes: > >> The GPL has a clear place to draw a line: what is distributed with the >> work, and not part of the OS. It can do that because it's tying into >> copyright law, and the idea of distribution is clear. I don't think >> you have anything like that clear line for use. > > At what point does use of the application send so much of its creative > portion to the user that it constitutes distribution? Does sending > just one file comprise distribution of the work? The line is not so > clear as you imply.
What is this "creative portion"? Use of apache doesn't infringe on the Apache group's copyrights at all, unless you're using it to transmit copies of apache. > Copyright law also reserves the right of public performance for works. > There is no clear line for that, but if you ask yourself "are the > protected elements of this work being made public?" it is probably > clearer than "what does it mean to use software remotely?" The only way I know of to give a public performance of apache is to rent a hall and read the source code from the stage. Running the program is not a public performance. Why? Because performance of oratory, dance, puppetry, or music itself has creative expression. Yoko Ono and William Shatner each sing "Lucy in the Sky" rather differently from John and Paul. You *can't* sing an unmodified song. But your machine and mine each run Apache identically. The public performance right is in there to differentiate Yoko Ono singing from Yoko Ono printing up a bunch of copies of the sheet music -- that is, so you can give somebody distribution rights without giving them performance rights. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
