8 ms·

The main problem with the interpretation that the GPL sets conditions for use of software is that it specifically claims it does not: > Activities other than c

The main problem with the interpretation that the GPL sets conditions for use of software is that it specifically claims it does not: > Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, Now there are some ways to try to do an end-run around this clause, it does raise some questions about how you get the right to run the program without "this License". But if we take the text seriously, it disclaims any restrictions on use. This is the part where the derivative work standard comes in. Because if the GPL doesn't set conditions on use, your use of the software doesn't require complying with that license. The GPL would only enter in if you are going beyond mere use, e.g. are you making a legal derivative work (not the GPL definition) (Not legal advice.)

Borealid 5y ago
I find it difficult to imagine a situation in which you could use the library without copying the library. How would you obtain the code to execute it? Someone must distribute it to you, and/or you must copy it. Those are the governed actions. EDIT: note that the GPL broadly doesn't impose restrictions on interacting with a program over a network ("using" a server), which is why the AGPL exists.
- chriscappuccio 5y ago
  It's ridiculous to expect that you can go after individual users for making single copies while not following your terms. You're going to sue someone for zero damages? For bruising your ego? Good luck with that. For the same reason, an AGPL item could be enforceable, but only if the violator is juicy enough.
- jarpadat 5y ago
  So, one answer (not necessarily the right one!) to how you can use software without copying it is that "the license says you can". In other words the license definitely views "running" and "copying" as distinct, regardless of you, me, or federal law. The other, maybe more familiar idea to lawyers, and maybe more plausible to you, is the one in MAI v. Peak, that running is copying by definition. (The argument is based on the idea that running a program copies it into RAM, so we don't even need to talk about how you obtained the software.) The way this shakes out is as follows: a. If running the program is "not covered by this License", then we can stop reading the license and return to copyright law. But copyright law says we need a license to run (that is, to copy, MAI v. Peak) the program, so where do we get it, if not from "this license"? Bit of a puzzler. b. If "running the Program is not restricted", maybe that sentence is by itself some kind of license to "run" the program, even though that contradicts the "not covered" part? If so, we need to understand what the license means by "run" which is evidently something different than "copy". Very probably, what this clause originally meant was that people who think like MAI v. Peak are wrong and nobody should need a license to run software. If so, it's pretty challenging to turn around and argue "just kidding, they do"
  - nmz 5y ago
    If true then this means before you even download the program you must agree to its license. only then are you allowed to download which in turn copies the program to ram and then to a FS.
  - tkw01536 5y ago
    In its’ very basic form a license has two distinct purposes: a) limit whatever rights are granted by copyright law b) grant new rights that go beyond copyright law > Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted I don’t see a contradiction here. The first part states that anything being granted by this license (purpose b) only applies to copying and distributing. The second part simply states that no new restrictions (in the sense of purpose a) are made. To be more explicit, the paragraph should be read as: > The act of running the Program is not additionally restricted
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    > The other, maybe more familiar idea to lawyers, and maybe more plausible to you, is the one in MAI v. Peak, that running is copying by definition. That is a bit over-simplified. The important part in MAI v. Peak was that Peak was a third party to the license between MAI and their client. The court recognized that MAI's client had the right to load/copy the program that they had acquired from MAI into memory without any additional license from MAI - there was already an explicit exemption in copyright law for this. However, they decided that this right can't be extended to a 3rd party (Peak, who as acting as a support technician), even if on the same machines.
  - butlerm 5y ago
    Congress has changed the law since MAI v. Peak specifically to allow users to create copies and adaptations of software programs as an essential step in running or utilizing the program in question on a machine, or for limited archival purposes (i.e. backups). "Adaptation" is another name for "derivative work". So it would appear that it is not a copyright violation for an end user to load or dynamically link modules with incompatible licenses into ram, or statically link them together, or make binary modifications, as long as what they are doing is necessary to use the program. It might still be a license violation of course, but it is probably a fruitless exercise to go after users who are exercising what are ordinarily considered to be well established rights necessary to use the software, the very thing that made MAI v. Peak an unfortunate ruling that Congress had to fix. Surely that sort of thing - even by third party technical support - should have been considered fair use from the beginning.

Borealid 5y ago

I find it difficult to imagine a situation in which you could use the library without copying the library. How would you obtain the code to execute it? Someone must distribute it to you, and/or you must copy it. Those are the governed actions. EDIT: note that the GPL broadly doesn't impose restrictions on interacting with a program over a network ("using" a server), which is why the AGPL exists.

chriscappuccio 5y ago
It's ridiculous to expect that you can go after individual users for making single copies while not following your terms. You're going to sue someone for zero damages? For bruising your ego? Good luck with that. For the same reason, an AGPL item could be enforceable, but only if the violator is juicy enough.
jarpadat 5y ago
So, one answer (not necessarily the right one!) to how you can use software without copying it is that "the license says you can". In other words the license definitely views "running" and "copying" as distinct, regardless of you, me, or federal law. The other, maybe more familiar idea to lawyers, and maybe more plausible to you, is the one in MAI v. Peak, that running is copying by definition. (The argument is based on the idea that running a program copies it into RAM, so we don't even need to talk about how you obtained the software.) The way this shakes out is as follows: a. If running the program is "not covered by this License", then we can stop reading the license and return to copyright law. But copyright law says we need a license to run (that is, to copy, MAI v. Peak) the program, so where do we get it, if not from "this license"? Bit of a puzzler. b. If "running the Program is not restricted", maybe that sentence is by itself some kind of license to "run" the program, even though that contradicts the "not covered" part? If so, we need to understand what the license means by "run" which is evidently something different than "copy". Very probably, what this clause originally meant was that people who think like MAI v. Peak are wrong and nobody should need a license to run software. If so, it's pretty challenging to turn around and argue "just kidding, they do"
- nmz 5y ago
  If true then this means before you even download the program you must agree to its license. only then are you allowed to download which in turn copies the program to ram and then to a FS.
- tkw01536 5y ago
  In its’ very basic form a license has two distinct purposes: a) limit whatever rights are granted by copyright law b) grant new rights that go beyond copyright law > Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted I don’t see a contradiction here. The first part states that anything being granted by this license (purpose b) only applies to copying and distributing. The second part simply states that no new restrictions (in the sense of purpose a) are made. To be more explicit, the paragraph should be read as: > The act of running the Program is not additionally restricted
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  > The other, maybe more familiar idea to lawyers, and maybe more plausible to you, is the one in MAI v. Peak, that running is copying by definition. That is a bit over-simplified. The important part in MAI v. Peak was that Peak was a third party to the license between MAI and their client. The court recognized that MAI's client had the right to load/copy the program that they had acquired from MAI into memory without any additional license from MAI - there was already an explicit exemption in copyright law for this. However, they decided that this right can't be extended to a 3rd party (Peak, who as acting as a support technician), even if on the same machines.
- butlerm 5y ago
  Congress has changed the law since MAI v. Peak specifically to allow users to create copies and adaptations of software programs as an essential step in running or utilizing the program in question on a machine, or for limited archival purposes (i.e. backups). "Adaptation" is another name for "derivative work". So it would appear that it is not a copyright violation for an end user to load or dynamically link modules with incompatible licenses into ram, or statically link them together, or make binary modifications, as long as what they are doing is necessary to use the program. It might still be a license violation of course, but it is probably a fruitless exercise to go after users who are exercising what are ordinarily considered to be well established rights necessary to use the software, the very thing that made MAI v. Peak an unfortunate ruling that Congress had to fix. Surely that sort of thing - even by third party technical support - should have been considered fair use from the beginning.