[CLUE-Talk] Copyright vs. software license.

[David Anselmi]

Jeff,

Since I agree with you, here's a summary of what we've been saying:

Software can be (usually is) copyrighted.  That restricts what you can do with it
(can't copy and distribute it to all your friends), without permission.  It also
permits you to do some things with it (copy off disk, into memory, in order to
run it).

Software can also be (and usually is) licensed.  That's a contract (which may not
be enforcable) between you and the copyright owner that can limit the things
you're allowed to do with copies of software you own, even to say that you can't
do what's allowed by copyright law.

One argument in favor of free or open source software is that the licensing
usually lets you do more with copyrighted software than you'd normally be able
to.  That's a good thing, because if you don't like the closed source license,
you generally have no way to modify it - your choices are to accept the license
or to use something else.  BTW, I'll go out on a limb and say the thing that
makes software open or closed source is the license agreement.

Of course that leads to the discussion of whether licenses *should*  be
enforcable.

I don't think Dan B. was confusing copyright and license.  Perhaps my paraphrase
did.  Dan B's opinion seems to be that licenses (at least the typical shrinkwrap
type) aren't enforcable.  Therefore you're allowed to do as much as copyright law
permits with software you buy.  His opinion matters little.  The cynical side of
me says that opinion, logic, precedent, and legislation also matter little - that
the courts are run by money so money is what decides these issues.  (Not always,
sure.  And not necessarily in a corrupt way.)

Here's a thought: would my local library be interested in loaning out software?
M$'s license says they can't.  OK, what about GPL software?  Want to install
Linux?  Go to the library and checkout <insert your favorite distro here>.
Install it for a week and bring it back.  After you've got the basic install
done, you probably don't need the CDs or books much, if you have Internet
access.  If people bring back the distros they win as CLUE door prizes, then
we're already there.

Dave

Jeffery Cann wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Monday 11 June 2001 10:31, David Anselmi wrote:
>
> >He seems to know more than me about copyright law and basically says
> > that license agreements are unenforcable as they violate what you're
> > allowed to do with software you buy.
>
> Dave,
>
> I enjoyed your post.  However, I think Dan Berstein is confusing copyrights
> and license issues.
>
> Given that he is an Assistant Professor of Mathematics and not teaching
> copyright law, I would be suspicious of his analysis simply because he does
> not appear to have legal training (just like us!).
>
> Based on what he does teach (Number Theory, for example), it seems that he is
> an intelligent guy who has presented a reasoned rebuttal to software
> licenses, based solely on logic.  Unfortunately, our legal system is governed
> by both logic and precedence.  For our discussion, the Copyright Act is the
> legal precedence.
>
> It may be that the Microsoft license agreement is not enforceable (this is
> debatable).  However, based on the Copyright Act, It is clear that you cannot
> violate the copyrights of Microsoft.  For example, you violate their rights
> if you make copies of the software and distribute them.  In fact, the same
> would be true of I wrote a book and you copied it and distributed the copies.
>
> The copyrights of Microsoft (and anyone for that matter) are a separate
> issue, governed by separate Federal laws.
>
> If you get Linux Journal, you may want to read the 'Geek Law' column that
> appears in the July 2001 issue (page 112).  Actually, I just checked and this
> column is available at:
>
> http://www2.linuxjournal.com/lj-issues/issue87/4754.html
>
> The discussion of the following question "Can a software license restrict my
> ability to use software?" seems applicable to our discussion.
>
> Check it out and give us your thoughts.
>
> Later,
> Jeff
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAjsqAFkACgkQw3/GBQk72kCDWwCfQm//Q06bDDbVx+5NpcwGs77C
> FMoAn0TuqciZh+EYuwzBR0oHTHfnGBph
> =IfNt
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> CLUE-Talk mailing list
> CLUE-Talk at clue.denver.co.us
> http://clue.denver.co.us/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk