First, my apologies for top posting... I'm using Outlook at the moment (shudder) and can't for the life of me figure out how to get the old text properly indented. So this is the best I can do.
As for Specht V. Netscape, Michael, I know you are a smart guy who is good with citations; it boggles me that you would reference this case. This case deals with the enforceability of click-wrap licenses, with particular attention to forced arbitration clauses. It doesn't get to copyright infringement at all, which is my point with the GPL and its binding nature. There is one reference to a 'browse wrap' case in Specht where an individual was sued because he took information off of a website in violation the site's license. The court found that license unenforceable... big surprise. But there is still an action under copyright law, the guy got off because of bad lawyering. Absent written consent you can't transfer (s)106 rights under the law. I haven't had a chance to look at the GPL after Glenn's last post (hopefully tonight), but the operative question here, and one that your skills with citations seems well suited to, is figuring out the following question: "If individual A is authorized to distribute software, and individual B initiates an action that results in a copy being made of that software from A's distribution server, has B violated the original author's 106(1) rights? Or, as I believe Glenn is suggesting (and may be right... question is really interesting) does the grant to distribute authorize B to give others the right to copy in the process of distribution?" If Glenn is wrong, and a downloader does not agree to the GPL, then it seems to me the downloader has no right to retain a copy of the software. -Sean -----Original Message----- From: Michael K. Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 1:34 PM To: Sean Kellogg Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#317359: kde: ..3'rd "Help"->"About $KDE-app" tab calls the GPL "License Agreement", ie; a contract. On 7/12/05, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When you download something from the deb archives, you create a copy. That > copy is not permitted under the copyright act unless you have permission from > the owner. If that's not the way you read 106(1), then downloading > copyrighted mp3s off napster was legal... and I suggest to you it was not. Specht v. Netscape. Napster case is irrelevant. I can't find anything to disagree with in any of Glenn's contributions in this thread. IANAL and all that. Cheers, - Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
