Disappointing [LWN.net]

Disappointing

Posted Oct 22, 2012 3:10 UTC (Mon) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312)
In reply to: Disappointing by paravoid
Parent article: Mozilla's web app store debuts in Firefox for Android

> If there's no clear copyright license, or the copyright license is not a free software license, it's a copyright violation to even study the code

That is one of the most preposterous things I have ever heard. Perhaps you could tell us which of the exclusive rights enumerated in 17 USC 106 is implicated by merely "studying the code":

"(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission."

(Log in to post comments)

Disappointing

Posted Oct 22, 2012 4:17 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

> Perhaps you could tell us which of the exclusive rights enumerated in 17 USC 106 is implicated by merely "studying the code":

17 USC 106 is generally not held in especially high regard by courts outside the US. Is it a right guaranteed by Berne?

Disappointing

Posted Oct 22, 2012 11:35 UTC (Mon) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]

>> Perhaps you could tell us which of the exclusive rights enumerated in 17 USC 106 is implicated by merely "studying the code":

> 17 USC 106 is generally not held in especially high regard by courts outside the US. Is it a right guaranteed by Berne?

I can't believe there's any dispute here. The right to look at a copyrighted work is so obviously not exclusive to the copyright holder that your diversion is completely absurd.