scott wrote:
>>> Assuming it was completely for free (ie you didn't make them sign or 
>>> agree to some specific license) then I hope you can't sue them.
>>
>> I don't have to agree to any license at all to obtain GPL software. It 
>> is completely free for me to obtain it.
> 
> Then you should be free to distribute it further without worrying.

Hey, welcome to copyright!

> How 
> is distributing it further any different from distributing the link if 
> it is completely free to download?

Because you don't own the copyright.

>>> If you want to control your work, don't release it for free to the 
>>> public.
>>
>> I guess you lose your copyright if you give your book to the library 
>> to loan out?
> 
> If you put limitless free copies of your book in the library

Oh, now we're up to "limitless"?

> I don't think you would have much 
> claim to people making further copies of it when it is freely available 
> anyway. 

OK, I think we're going to just have to agree to disagree. I'm talking about 
how the situation works right now, and you're talking about how you think it 
ought to work.

 > Exactly what have you lost, as the author, by people making
> their own copies when you are giving away your copies for free?

The copyright. The right to prevent other people from making copies without 
your permission.

-- 
   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

Darren New schrieb:
> I don't have to agree to any license at all to obtain GPL software. It 
> is completely free for me to obtain it.

You may be completely free to /obtain/ it, but if you also want to /use/ 
it (for anything other than wasting hard disk space), then you have to 
agree to the GPL - the "GNU Public License".

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Darren New schrieb:
>> I don't have to agree to any license at all to obtain GPL software. It 
>> is completely free for me to obtain it.
> 
> You may be completely free to /obtain/ it, but if you also want to /use/ 
> it (for anything other than wasting hard disk space), then you have to 
> agree to the GPL - the "GNU Public License".

No you don't.

-- 
   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

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:22:26 +0200, clipka wrote:

> Darren New schrieb:
>> I don't have to agree to any license at all to obtain GPL software. It
>> is completely free for me to obtain it.
> 
> You may be completely free to /obtain/ it, but if you also want to /use/
> it (for anything other than wasting hard disk space), then you have to
> agree to the GPL - the "GNU Public License".

Nope:

GPLv3, section 9, states:

"You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a 
copy of the Program."

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a 
> copy of the Program."

In part because that's how copyright works. You can't really impose 
restrictions on someone via copyright, other than basically not copying.

-- 
   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

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:40:30 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run
>> a copy of the Program."
> 
> In part because that's how copyright works. You can't really impose
> restrictions on someone via copyright, other than basically not copying.

Yep; that's why a lot of software companies moved to using a license 
agreement instead.  In some localities, though, they treat the license 
agreement as nothing more than copyright; I understand in Germany, a 
software company cannot impose restrictions on the use of software 
(including how you may or may not resell it or whether - IIRC - you can 
reverse-engineer it).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I understand in Germany, a 
> software company cannot impose restrictions on the use of software 
> (including how you may or may not resell it or whether - IIRC - you can 
> reverse-engineer it).

In the USA before the DMCA, a license couldn't prevent you from doing things 
allowed by fair use. Particularly because copyright law is federal and 
license law is state-level.

-- 
   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

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:02:31 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I understand in Germany, a
>> software company cannot impose restrictions on the use of software
>> (including how you may or may not resell it or whether - IIRC - you can
>> reverse-engineer it).
> 
> In the USA before the DMCA, a license couldn't prevent you from doing
> things allowed by fair use. Particularly because copyright law is
> federal and license law is state-level.

Yep, I remember that from an earlier discussion. :-)

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...

Post a reply to this message

> 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.  And I mean completely freely 
available, no signing anything, no agreeing to terms, no having to give your 
address, no joining a waiting list etc.

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?

Post a reply to this message