Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled

Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled

Posted Oct 31, 2007 12:50 UTC (Wed) by AnoymousCoward (guest, #48794)
In reply to: Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled by etienne_lorrain@yahoo.fr
Parent article: Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled

If you loose "your rights under this License", you loose the right to even use the GPL: to use GCC, to use cygwin, to use Linux. What else than the GPL enable you to run even once, on your PC, a copyrighted work?

You're not a lawyer indeed. To answer your questions:

1. No license of any kind is required to run software (ANY software!) on your computer; licenses pertain to the things covered by copyright law (distribution, derivative works etc.), not mere use. The is true for proprietary software as well, although manufacturers are of course trying to weasel out of it by using license agreements (i.e., contracts) to control how the user can use the software, too.

2. "your rights under this License" refers to the rights granted to you by the GPL - the ability to distribute, modify etc. provided you mean certain conditions. Your right to use the GPL for your own works is not affected.

Of course, IANAL either.

---

(Log in to post comments)

 IANAL, but I do not think you are allowed to have a copy of a copyrighted work on your PC,
backup and use that copy, without any agreement whatsoever with the copyright owner.
 The only autorisation would comes from the GPL, that is probably one of the "rights" you lost
by not having acepted the GPL requirements.

Copyright deals primarily with the right to make /copies/ of a work. That's why it's named the
way it is. Sort of a -duh-. It also includes certain closely related rights, such as the right
to publicly perform a work.

But yes, you are perfectly allowed to -have- a copyrighted book in your bookshelf, or a
copyrighted program in your computer, with no "license" whatsoever. It's only when you want to
start making *copies* of that book, or that program, that you need the permission of the
copyright-holder.

Backups depend on your jurisdiction. In saner jurisdictions you're allowed to make limited
copies for your own use of copyrighted works, but this varies with jurisdiction.

Of course in some jurisdictions you're not allowed to do anything useful 
with that copy on disk, as that involves making a copy in memory. The 
degree of stupidity of this approach is obvious to anyone with the least 
modicum of clue, but it hasn't been fixed... one advantage of the iPod and 
friends is that this sort of thing may finally *get* fixed, because 
everyone and his dog including lots of legislators are now doing 
format-shifting and so on and expect it to be legal. If format-shifting is 
legal, `copying into memory' certainly is.

Yeah, like I said, it depends.

In Norway it's also kinda insane, but not that insane.

Here you're /generally/ allowed to make a "limited number" of copies of a copyrigthed work for
personal use. Personal use includes close friends and family, so here it's actually explicitly
allowed to say make a compilation-cd with 15 of your kid-sisters favourite songs for her.

There's however an exception for programs. You're *not* allowed to make a copy of the newest
computer-game and give it to a close friend of yours. You are however allowed to make any
copies needed for normal usage of the program. Courts have ruled that this includes the rigth
to take backups, backing up a computer is "normal usage" of the computer.

Industry is figthing tooth-and-nail to kill the limited copies thing, or if that doesn't work
(which seems currently likely) to make people *BELIEVE* that any copying is illegal.