Re: [boost] Re: Boost license

From: Momchil Velikov (velco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-31 17:41:47

>>>>> "Alexander" == Alexander Terekhov <terekhov_at_[hidden]> writes:

    Alexander> 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.

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

  Ok, let it be making copies. So I walk into a store, buy I book and
I'm entitled to making copies and derived works and distribute them?
In the same way, I'm entitled to do the same with the Boost libraries?
In the same way, I'm entitled to do the same with the software at
ftp://ftp.gnu.org?  In the same way, I'm entitled to do the same with
http://download.microsoft.com/download/8/1/e/81ed90eb-dd87-4a23-aedc-298a9603b4e4/directx_9c_redist.exe ?

(For the record, I just downloaded the three things without accepting
any license or agreeing to a contract or whatever).

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

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

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

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

Not sure what do you mean by this ?

    >> 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.

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

Ok, I understend your opinion. Whether this is true or not will be
further investigated.

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

    Alexander> No.

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

    Alexander> For example,

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

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

Is this merely a ``display'' of the software
http://unc.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/boost/boost_1_31_0.tar.bz2 ?

Is this merely a ``display'' of the software
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/gcc/gcc-3.4.1/gcc-3.4.1.tar.bz2 ?

What should one do, if he wants more than the fair use rights ? (I
presume fair use does not allow manufacturing a thousand CDs with
Boost, putting them in a pretty box with an EULA printed on the side)

~velco