[PD-ot] Re: Using Copyright

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Jan 6, 2006, at 12:08 PM, Marc Lavallée wrote:

> We're still talking about the GPL.
> Hans, this message is also a reply to your two previous messages on  
> pd-dev.
>
> Le 5 Janvier 2006 18:26, Chris McCormick a écrit :
>> I am not a lawyer, but I take this to mean that you must provide
>> the source code to anyone you distribute it to.
>
> Yes.
>
> But at this point, it would be important to define a few things.
>
> - A company is a legal entity, like a person.
> - When working as an employee, you have no copyrights on your work.
> - Copying is the act of making a copy of something available.
> - Distributing is the act of making something available to others.
> - Downloading is the act of making a copy of something distributed by
> someone else.
> - When participating in exchange networks (like P2P) you are both  
> copying
> and distributing your copies.
>
> A good example of this is in the Canadian law; we are allowed to copy
> anything but we are not allowed to distribute copyrighted works  
> (unless it
> is specified in their licenses). So I can legally download tons of
> proprietary works and never get busted unless I redistribute them.

I don't know Canadian law, but generally, with copyright, the terms of  
which you are allowed to copy are not determined by law, but rather the  
license.  If a license says you are not allowed to make copies for  
yourself, you are not allowed to (except for fair use exceptions).  An  
example of this is software licenses that only allow one installed  
copy.

.hc

>> Hence, if you only
>> distribute your modifications to people inside your company, you only
>> need to give the source code of those modifications to those same  
>> people
>> inside your company.
>
> Not necessarily, because the company owns the modifications.
> Modifications are first creating a new custom software for private use.
>
> If you work for yourself, the modifications are yours (unless you give  
> your
> rights to a client). If you work for a company, the modifications  
> belongs
> to the company, unless you negociate an arrangement. Distributing  
> happens
> when you release the software outside of the company, so inside the  
> company
> you don't have to give the source code to your colleagues (or anyone  
> else),
> unless your boss ask you to.
>
> From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#PrivateSoftware :
>
> "Private software
>
>     Private or custom software is software developed for one user  
> (typically
> an organization or company). That user keeps it and uses it, and does  
> not
> release it to the public either as source code or as binaries.
>
>     A private program is free software in a trivial sense if its  
> unique user
> has full rights to it. However, in a deeper sense, it does not really  
> make
> sense to pose the question of whether such a program is free software  
> or
> not.
>
>     In general we do not believe it is wrong to develop a program and  
> not
> release it. There are occasions when a program is so useful that
> withholding it from release is treating humanity badly. However, most
> programs are not that marvelous, and withholding them is not  
> particularly
> harmful. Thus, there is no conflict between the development of private  
> or
> custom software and the principles of the free software movement.
>
>     Nearly all employment for programmers is in development of custom
> software; therefore most programming jobs are, or could be, done in a  
> way
> compatible with the free software movement.
> "
>
> --
> Marc
>

________________________________________________________________________ 
____

"Computer science is no more related to the computer than astronomy is  
related to the telescope."
                                                           -Edsger  
Dykstra