 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Reflecting (and bent) torus on checkered plane
Date: 1 Sep 2009 11:42:09
Message: <4a9d40d1$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> The copyright. The right to prevent other people from making copies
>> without your permission.
>
> All I'm saying is that I don't see how you can keep that right when your
> work is freely available in the first place.
It seems pretty easy to me. Mine is the only server it may be served from. I
have to authorize the printer to make more copies of the book. If I stop
broadcasting it, no more copies are created. You're not allowed to
photograph my outdoor statue. (I'll grant that last one would be really hard
to enforce, but by no means impossible or incomprehensible.)
> If it went to court in such a situation, how would the judge decide how
> much money the author had lost by this "unlawful" copying of the work?
That's irrelevant. In any case, if you made money distributing it yourself
(say, selling postcards of the outdoor statue), the amount I could win would
seem easy to calculate.
However, it's irrelevant, because the question isn't "how much am I
damaged." The question is "how can you copyright an outdoor artwork."
How much is someone damaged if I take a GPL program that's freely available
without me having to agree to anything, I add features to it, and I
distribute the new executable without releasing the source?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Reflecting (and bent) torus on checkered plane
Date: 2 Sep 2009 01:13:12
Message: <4a9dfee8$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 05:44:53 +0200, clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run
>> a copy of the Program."
>
> Ah okay... another point I obviously didn't read properly...
Or perhaps it's not present in v2, I didn't look. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>> "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run
>>> a copy of the Program."
>> Ah okay... another point I obviously didn't read properly...
>
> Or perhaps it's not present in v2, I didn't look. :-)
I just did: GPL v2 Section 5 can be interpreted that way, but it's not
as obvious.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: scott
Subject: Re: Reflecting (and bent) torus on checkered plane
Date: 2 Sep 2009 02:58:19
Message: <4a9e178b@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> That's irrelevant. In any case, if you made money distributing it yourself
> (say, selling postcards of the outdoor statue), the amount I could win
> would seem easy to calculate.
Yes, zero, because you were giving it away for free in the first place. If
you had some evidence that at a certain point in time you would cease giving
it away for free and start selling stuff then ok, you could probably claim
some losses. But without any evidence of that I don't see how you can claim
some fictitious loss of earnings of whatever.
> How much is someone damaged if I take a GPL program that's freely
> available without me having to agree to anything, I add features to it,
> and I distribute the new executable without releasing the source?
Zero dollars.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: clipka
Subject: Re: Reflecting (and bent) torus on checkered plane
Date: 2 Sep 2009 03:38:52
Message: <4a9e210c@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott schrieb:
>> That's irrelevant. In any case, if you made money distributing it
>> yourself (say, selling postcards of the outdoor statue), the amount I
>> could win would seem easy to calculate.
>
> Yes, zero, because you were giving it away for free in the first place.
> If you had some evidence that at a certain point in time you would cease
> giving it away for free and start selling stuff then ok, you could
> probably claim some losses. But without any evidence of that I don't
> see how you can claim some fictitious loss of earnings of whatever.
Wrongo.
Suppose the artist intended selling postcards of the object himself.
You just ruined that business model, by having flooded the market alread
with /your/ postcards.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yes, zero, because you were giving it away for free in the first place.
>> If you had some evidence that at a certain point in time you would cease
>> giving it away for free and start selling stuff then ok, you could
>> probably claim some losses. But without any evidence of that I don't see
>> how you can claim some fictitious loss of earnings of whatever.
>
> Wrongo.
> Suppose the artist intended selling postcards of the object himself.
Then if he really wants a monopoly on the postcard selling market (maybe he
doesn't), he shouldn't put the object in a public place (where anyone is
free to make their own postcard with a camera and printer).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Reflecting (and bent) torus on checkered plane
Date: 2 Sep 2009 10:15:24
Message: <4a9e7dfc$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:17:59 +0200, clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>>> "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or
>>>> run a copy of the Program."
>>> Ah okay... another point I obviously didn't read properly...
>>
>> Or perhaps it's not present in v2, I didn't look. :-)
>
> I just did: GPL v2 Section 5 can be interpreted that way, but it's not
> as obvious.
That explains the clarity of wording in v3. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Reflecting (and bent) torus on checkered plane
Date: 2 Sep 2009 10:53:16
Message: <4a9e86dc$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> That's irrelevant. In any case, if you made money distributing it
>> yourself (say, selling postcards of the outdoor statue), the amount I
>> could win would seem easy to calculate.
>
> Yes, zero, because you were giving it away for free in the first place.
It doesn't work that way.
>> How much is someone damaged if I take a GPL program that's freely
>> available without me having to agree to anything, I add features to
>> it, and I distribute the new executable without releasing the source?
>
> Zero dollars.
It doesn't work that way.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Reflecting (and bent) torus on checkered plane
Date: 2 Sep 2009 10:53:43
Message: <4a9e86f7$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Then if he really wants a monopoly on the postcard selling market (maybe
> he doesn't), he shouldn't put the object in a public place (where anyone
> is free to make their own postcard with a camera and printer).
It doesn't work that way.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Reflecting (and bent) torus on checkered plane
Date: 2 Sep 2009 10:55:21
Message: <4a9e8759$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>>> "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run
>>>> a copy of the Program."
>>> Ah okay... another point I obviously didn't read properly...
>>
>> Or perhaps it's not present in v2, I didn't look. :-)
>
> I just did: GPL v2 Section 5 can be interpreted that way, but it's not
> as obvious.
You're never required by copyright to agree to a license before you can
receive or run a copy of a program. Not in the USA at least.
Copyright controls copying, period. Loading a program from a disk into
memory, being an essential step in using the program, is not copying, any
more than bouncing light off a page to form an image on your retina is.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
