Momchil Velikov wrote:
Alexander,
The discussion is drifting away somewhat ...
So, the claim is that there's no need of explicit permission (in the Boost License) to make copies and copies of derived work (=distribute), because this right is granted by the USC.
Permission to MAKE copies (reproduction) is needed. Distribution (redistribution) != reproduction. Reproduction is the most "fundamental" thing. http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation ;-) IIUC, distribution right comes into play only in the context of illegal copies. It's needed to put piracy dialers (they don't produce pirated copies and only buy and sell -- distribute) into jail.
As a side note proprietary licenses do not allow distribution by explicitly forbidding it and are without doubt enforceable by virtue of being contracts.
Quoting Rosen: "in most jurisdictions the parties can agree to almost any damn fool thing they want, except those things which are against public policy." And the Libaries say that http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/reply/Reply008.pdf <quote> Copyright Act should state unambiguously that non-negotiated license terms are pre-empted to the extent that they conflict with the Act. Consistent with the model from the Boucher- Campbell Bill cited above (in Section II of these comments) and supported by the Libraries and a broad coalition of interested parties, H.R. 3048, section 301(a) of the title 17, United States Code should be amended by adding the following at the end thereof: When a work is distributed to the public subject to non- negotiable license terms, such terms shall not be enforceable under the common law or statutes of any state to the extent that they: (1) limit the reproduction, adaptation, distribution, performance, or display, by means of transmission or otherwise, of material that is uncopyrightable under section 102(b) or otherwise; or (2) abrogate or restrict the limitations on exclusive rights specified in sections 107 through 114 and sections 117, 118 and 121 of this title. </quote> I agree. ;-)
As another side note ditribution terms of GPL is not enforceable (in some cases) because one can legally obtain copies of GPL'ed software without being bound by the GPL and thus USC provisions apply.
Exactly. Clearly, Stallman and Moglen erroneously believe(d) in "exclusive redistribution right" for software. But it doesn't exist. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html "The free software movement thinks all those activities are rights, which all users ought to have; we don't even want to cover those activities by license. Almost everyone who uses GPL'd software from day to day needs no license, and ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ accepts none. The GPL only obliges you if you distribute ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ software made from GPL'd code, and only needs to be accepted when redistribution occurs. And because no one ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ can ever redistribute without a license," ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ha ha. And Ha. "we can safely presume that anyone redistributing GPL'd software intended to accept the GPL. " Yeah, dream on, Prof.
Are these yours and Boost lawers claims or have I misunderstood something ?
Mine and only mine.
And as another side note, when one is capable of downloading some software, does that mean that the software is in the public domain,
No.
just because one has no idea whether it has or has no rights to download it ?
For example, http://www.terekhov.de/DESIGN-futex-CV.cpp is All Rights Reserved. I merely "display" it. Only fair use is permitted (by law). regards, alexander.