Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 12:37 pm
Some would argue that...well, here in Europe at least. Our own general view of Fair Use has been challenged too many times to count, and a bit like the GM debate EU governments at least are under a lot of pressure to not only protect, but to extend the definition. The French I think are still recovering from that little shock a while back...Roja wrote:In US copyright law, the presumption is that once you have possession of the good, you can use it as you like - "Fair use". Fair use does not include the right to make copies, the right to make a modification and pass it off as your own, and so on.
To gain those rights, you have to exchange some rights. Thats generally done in a license. The license specifies what rights the original copyright holder grants to you, and what you have to accept in exchange.
Maybe my view of the loophole differs from yours? I consider it solved if the source is available if I declare such in a license, not necessarily a forced to offer package based solely on a license term without developer involvement (i.e. whether or not such a facility is made available). The GPL was never suitable for a non-choice term.
I can't see a full (make it available if accessed across a network) coming into play. It has to be optional in some respect and up to each developer. Otherwise you'd have dozens of programs effected from ssh clones to who knows what.
This is where I get confused (and not sure why I should be confused). Where does it state the conditions upon which the additional terms are and are not triggered?Quote: "To 'propagate' a work means doing anything with it that requires permission under applicable copyright law, other than executing it on a computer or making private modifications."
From my view, the Affero clause made it clear that the facility was part of program whether distributed or not - and its "removal" was forbidden. Where are the exceptions to that rule? Sure it can be removed privately - but its appears forbidden specifically when the program (regardless of private execution) is being interacted with remotely by other users.
The GPL additional clause offers much the same opportunity with an optional user term...
I don't see it stated anywhere such a clause requires propagation - the additional term defines its own trigger (accessible across a computer network). That seems clearly aimed at any interaction with the program's interace - not its execution.
To avoid beating around in circles - I could be completely missing the point (hardly the first time that happened
I write Program A, distribute under GPL v3 with the AGPL clause attached. I have included a link to a gzip archive of the source code. User A downloads, modifies, hosts, and...does what to escape the AGPL phrasing??? Remove it? Its forbidden to do so if other users can interact with the program across a computer network. Alter it or hide it some way?
I just know I am missing something completely obvious in your post - but what?
I'm off to read the license again...before the sky falls...