Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:58:14 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
<redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Toon Moene <toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> wrote:
>> Close. Note that copyright is about *copying*, not *use*. The GPL
>> allows you to distribute (modified) copies of the Programming Work.
>>
>> Just as you can read a copyright book legally obtained from a library,
>> you can legally use a copyright program - you just cannot legally (re-)
>> distribute it without an additional license.
>
>Again close
When you "use" a program, you actually make many
>copies of it -- at least in RAM and usually on the Hard Disk.
>Additional copies in caches, buffers and swap probably count
>as transient.
>
>The difference isn't entirely trivial, because many people
>can use the single copy that's in RAM. Multiple windows.
>Modern OSes will automatically share codepages.
It may be "modern" to Billy & The Embalmer but single instance shared code
pages is hardly a new thing. I don't see that kind of stuff being any use
for multiple users apart from where the software is installed on an
application server... where there are ways to control it.
>I believe there's legislation in the EU to specifically permit
>copying software as necessary for use, but don't believe there's
>anything beyond caselaw in the US.
Is this in respect to open source only or shrink wrap stuff? I'd think
that'd have a hard time making any way with high $$ stuff. Are they going
to force M$ to ignore the "activation" violations, or oblige the issuance
of multiple free dongles? You know if the EU is contemplating some new
ground breaking law, you have to figure, whatever it is, it's the wrong way
to do things.🙂
Rgds, George Macdonald
"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:58:14 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
<redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Toon Moene <toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> wrote:
>> Close. Note that copyright is about *copying*, not *use*. The GPL
>> allows you to distribute (modified) copies of the Programming Work.
>>
>> Just as you can read a copyright book legally obtained from a library,
>> you can legally use a copyright program - you just cannot legally (re-)
>> distribute it without an additional license.
>
>Again close
When you "use" a program, you actually make many>copies of it -- at least in RAM and usually on the Hard Disk.
>Additional copies in caches, buffers and swap probably count
>as transient.
>
>The difference isn't entirely trivial, because many people
>can use the single copy that's in RAM. Multiple windows.
>Modern OSes will automatically share codepages.
It may be "modern" to Billy & The Embalmer but single instance shared code
pages is hardly a new thing. I don't see that kind of stuff being any use
for multiple users apart from where the software is installed on an
application server... where there are ways to control it.
>I believe there's legislation in the EU to specifically permit
>copying software as necessary for use, but don't believe there's
>anything beyond caselaw in the US.
Is this in respect to open source only or shrink wrap stuff? I'd think
that'd have a hard time making any way with high $$ stuff. Are they going
to force M$ to ignore the "activation" violations, or oblige the issuance
of multiple free dongles? You know if the EU is contemplating some new
ground breaking law, you have to figure, whatever it is, it's the wrong way
to do things.🙂
Rgds, George Macdonald
"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram