[boost] Re: Boost license

From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-31 12:45:40

Momchil Velikov wrote:
> 
>   Alexander,
> 
>   The discussion is drifting away somewhat ...
> 
>   So, the claim is that there's no need of explicit permission (in the
> Boost License) to make copies and copies of derived work
> (=distribute), because this right is granted by the USC.

Permission to MAKE copies (reproduction) is needed. Distribution
(redistribution) != reproduction. Reproduction is the most 
"fundamental" thing.

http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation

;-)

IIUC, distribution right comes into play only in the context of 
illegal copies. It's needed to put piracy dialers (they don't 
produce pirated copies and only buy and sell -- distribute) into 
jail.

> 
>   As a side note proprietary licenses do not allow distribution by
> explicitly forbidding it and are without doubt enforceable by virtue
> of being contracts.

Quoting Rosen: "in most jurisdictions the parties can agree to 
almost any damn fool thing they want, except those things which 
are against public policy." And the Libaries say that

http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/reply/Reply008.pdf

<quote>

Copyright Act should state unambiguously that non-negotiated 
license terms are pre-empted to the extent that they conflict 
with the Act. Consistent with the model from the Boucher-
Campbell Bill cited above (in Section II of these comments) 
and supported by the Libraries and a broad coalition of 
interested parties, H.R. 3048, section 301(a) of the title 17, 
United States Code should be amended by adding the following 
at the end thereof:

When a work is distributed to the public subject to non-
negotiable license terms, such terms shall not be enforceable 
under the common law or statutes of any state to the extent 
that they:

(1) limit the reproduction, adaptation, distribution, 
performance, or display, by means of transmission or otherwise, 
of material that is uncopyrightable under section 102(b) or 
otherwise; or

(2) abrogate or restrict the limitations on exclusive rights 
specified in sections 107 through 114 and sections 117, 118 
and 121 of this title.”

</quote>

I agree. ;-)

> 
>   As another side note ditribution terms of GPL is not enforceable (in
> some cases) because one can legally obtain copies of GPL'ed software
> without being bound by the GPL and thus USC provisions apply.

Exactly. Clearly, Stallman and Moglen erroneously believe(d) in 
"exclusive redistribution right" for software. But it doesn't 
exist.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

"The free software movement thinks all those activities are 
 rights, which all users ought to have; we don't even want 
 to cover those activities by license. Almost everyone who 
 uses GPL'd software from day to day needs no license, and 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 accepts none. The GPL only obliges you if you distribute 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 software made from GPL'd code, and only needs to be 
 accepted when redistribution occurs. And because no one 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 can ever redistribute without a license,"
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ha ha. And Ha.
                                         "we can safely 
presume that anyone redistributing GPL'd software intended 
to accept the GPL. "

Yeah, dream on, Prof.

> 
>   Are these yours and Boost lawers claims or have I misunderstood
> something ?

Mine and only mine.

> 
>   And as another side note, when one is capable of downloading some
> software, does that mean that the software is in the public domain,

No.

> just because one has no idea whether it has or has no rights to
> download it ?

For example,

http://www.terekhov.de/DESIGN-futex-CV.cpp

is All Rights Reserved. I merely "display" it. Only fair use is 
permitted (by law).

regards,
alexander.