The StorageTek DMCA decision

Posted Sep 2, 2005 4:05 UTC (Fri) by kevinbsmith (guest, #4778)
In reply to: The StorageTek DMCA decision by lutchann
Parent article: The StorageTek DMCA decision

I know the FSF believes that binary dynamic linking creates a derived work. However, it does not necessarily follow that the act of executing such a work would violate the GPL. Do you have any links where I could read more about that claim?

Right near the top of the GPL, we see: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted..."

My interpretation remains that one could create a derived work (e.g. something dynamically linked), and could run it on their own computer for their own use. But they could not distribute it to anyone else, except under a GPL-compatible license.

Kevin (also definitely not a lawyer)

The StorageTek DMCA decision

Posted Sep 2, 2005 15:11 UTC (Fri) by lutchann (subscriber, #8872) [Link]

Ahh, OK, I spent some quality time with Google this morning and it looks like my facts are about 30 years out of date. The Copyright Act of 1976 specifically exempted the act of copying executable code into memory for the purpose of executing it from copyright protection. See this Q&A by Lawrence Rosen:

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/4754

This casts serious doubt, in my mind, that any copyright license (i.e. not a commercial-software-style license agreement, which is governed by contract law), could have any basis for precluding dynamic linking. Again, I sure wish we could see how this would play out in court.