Re: [tlug] GPL Quote

[葉潤 理男 <leo@example.com>]

On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 03:06:07PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>  > No, you can do whatever you want on your own machine (although some 
>  > EULAs would have you believe otherwise, DMCA notwithstanding).
> 
> That is *not true* in the U.S.

My bracketing was a little careless there - I meant that the DMCA does 
disallow some things.

> Also, some of the implied licenses can be revoked by explicit terms in 
> the EULA, others cannot.

Has this been tested in court? (Perhaps it has and EULAs are stronger 
than I thought).

> Giving misinformation on these points is not a friendly thing to do.

Of course I don't intend to mislead anyone. You've taken my original 
comment a bit out of context here (although it is admittedly vague) - 
'whatever you want' is talking about a GPL-ed application that you have 
obtained legitimately (as in the original post).

>  > It's only when you try to distribute the GPL-ed software that
>  > copyright comes in to play and you have to follow the terms of the
>  > license.
> 
> Again, not true.

I agree in general, but we're talking about a GPL application to which 
you have received the source code. You don't need a license to receive a 
legally distributed copy.

> Copyright comes into play as soon as you do anything
> but try to run a binary or view source, since you can't do anything
> with software without making copies (eg, long-term media to RAM to
> cache to CPU).

What about compiling the source, or modifying the code? Of course you 
can't release either of those without a license, but on your own machine 
this comes under fair use.


Leo