To: Emmanuel Fleury <fleury@cs.aau.dk>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: freebox possible GPL violation
From: Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 09:40:37 -0400
In-Reply-To: <4345215B.7060708@cs.aau.dk> (Emmanuel Fleury's message of "Thu,
	06 Oct 2005 15:06:35 +0200")
Message-ID: <87zmpm227e.fsf@sanosuke.troilus.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
References: <20051006120135.GA1002@linux.ensimag.fr>
	<4345215B.7060708@cs.aau.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1020
Lines: 24

Emmanuel Fleury writes:

>>>Are you sure this point has been clarified in court in the past ?
>>>If not, I would bet on it (for the specific case of settop boxes).
>> 
>> For french law I don't know, but someone on gpl-violation this is true
>> for de and au.
>
> Nonsense, you are talking about cases of softwares which were sold to
> customers with GPL code inside. This is no such case here.

In the US, the law (17 USC 106) is very clear that renting, lending,
and leasing are "distribution" that is a protected right.  The Berne
Convention says the same in article 11bis (remember that a later
revision explicitly included computer programs in "literary works").
Do you think this interpretation of "distribution" does not apply to
Free?  If not, why not?

Michael Poole
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/