Mike Meyer wrote: > > Are you claiming therefore that it's more acceptable to you to have to > > access the data remotely every time you use the software than once per > > install? > > Alex's solution doesn't require special treatment for disaster > recovery and/or planning, and as such is a valid answer to the > question. It may be unacceptable for *other* reasons, but it beats > dictating a disaster recovery plan for your software to the end user > hands down on that basis.
Sorry, I just don't see this as being a significant difference that makes 'access-always' acceptable and 'access rarely' unacceptable. > > No, I am just pointing out that you are mixing up the concept of an > > actual 'right' such as one embodied in a state's constitution, with an > > implied 'right' that is just an exemption from committing an offence. > > The term 'right' does not even appear in the relevant part of US > > copyright law, except to state that it is a limitation on the copyright > > holder's rights. > > You're still just playing semantic games. The common usage is "fair > use rights." If you mean "... without infringing on the end users > rights, except for fair use rights", then you should say that. Call it what you like; still, I cannot be infringing on your right when such a right does not exist to be infringed. If you want to term it a 'right', feel free, but that's not what you're granted under US law or the Berne Convention. The 'common usage' here leads to a misinterpretation of what you're entitled to. What is actually stated is a limitation on the copyright holder's exclusive rights, which is a very different matter. -- Ben Sizer -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
