Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755261AbXF3GQ5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Jun 2007 02:16:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751468AbXF3GQu (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Jun 2007 02:16:50 -0400 Received: from lsd-gw.ic.unicamp.br ([143.106.7.165]:47995 "EHLO marquesa.lsd.ic.unicamp.br" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751848AbXF3GQt (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Jun 2007 02:16:49 -0400 To: davids@webmaster.com Cc: "Linux-Kernel\@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: Re: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3? References: From: Alexandre Oliva Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 03:16:42 -0300 In-Reply-To: (David Schwartz's message of "Fri\, 29 Jun 2007 21\:04\:34 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2541 Lines: 55 On Jun 30, 2007, "David Schwartz" wrote: >> But software is different. So different >> that it's governed by a separate law in Brazil, which could be >> qualified as a subclass of copyright law. And this law states that >> running programs requires permission from the copyright holder. > So do I have to buy a program and then negotiate the right to run it > separately? That seems very crazy. If you buy the program, then you become the copyright holder. I assume you meant buying a license. In this case, especially in the case of off-the-shelf non-Free Software, the license likely grants you permission to run the program, otherwise why would you pay for the license anyway? >> If you find that odd, you may have an idea of how ludicrous patents on >> software, business methods et al are. At least copyright regulation >> of execution saves us from a few abusive EULAs, created with the >> purpose of, let's see, regulating execution. > Quite the reverse. If execution is a copyright right, then I might need to > agree to a license or conract to get it. If execution is not a copyright > right, then I am safe from such craziness. Whoever gave you the copy you lawfully obtained is already subject to and/or able to offer a copyright license anyway. If the copyright holder wants to restrict your ability to run the software, whether copyright covers this case or not is absolutely irrelevant. And evidently some businesses have interests in restricting your ability to run software, not only to be able to sell you multiple licenses of non-Free Software, but also to turn Free Software into non-Free Software. > I am probably one of the stronger supporters of intellectual > property rights How do you reason about binary-only software fulfilling the goal of copyright? How does it deliver its part of the copyright deal with society if, even after it goes public domain, still nobody can create derived works from it because the source code remains unavailable? http://www.fsfla.org/?q=en/node/128#1 -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} - 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/