Subject: Re: More licensing flames...
To: None <>
From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
List: current-users
Date: 09/24/1998 22:37:05

I'm not sure why we should be particularly interested in your
opinions.  I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, but I have
followed changes in IP law.

There's an important difference between your example and GPL software:
the creation of a new, composite work from the GPLed software and your
own code. 

A much better analogy is a private book-seller (publisher) who takes
the "free" material and bundles it into a collection or anthology, and
charges for the collection.  In doing so, they are not abiding by the
license of the "free" material and can be taken to court.

IIANM, pretty much this exact scenari has in fact happened with
recipes ``free for noncommerical use'' culled from the 'Net.

>I'm pretty sure the judge would say: well, I see your point.  The
>contestant is, after all, trying to spread his book around for free and
>makes every effort to do so.  I see no reason why you should not also be
>able to give away copies of his book as well, since if he knew who your
>customers were (which he cannot because you keep you customer list as a
>trade secret), he could give them all free copies at his own expense
>anyway.  You're simply saving him that expense while at the same time
>spreading his good word.  Case dismissed.

The producer of th ederived work is violating the license terms of the
copyright holder. _I_ expect that if you tried ths, you'd pretty soon
find out that that's what the law will find important, not your
charming tale.  (I am not a laywer, this is not a legal opinion and
does not constitue legal advice.)

Can we please take this legal flamage somewhere else?