RE: [dvd-discuss] You can go swimming, but....

["Dean Sanchez" <DSanchez(at)fcci-group.com>]

Additionally, it actually lessens the restrictions upon copyrighted material, not tightens it.  Copyright gives the holder certain exclusive rights; however, there is no requirement that the holder exercise all those rights - the holder can waive any or all of them.  However, the holder should not be allowed to add additional restrictions that restrict the agreement between society and the holder.  This one of the few instances where, if the word 'steal' is every appropriate when applied to IP in general, it should be used - the holder is 'stealing' from the public' that granted the 'rights'.

-----Original Message-----
From: D. C. Sessions [mailto:dcs@lumbercartel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 10:51 PM
To: DVD-Discuss
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] You can go swimming, but....


On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 14:57, Jeremy Erwin wrote:

> How might your argument apply to the GPL? The GNU foundation argues that 
> while use of a program does not infringe on copyright, the modification 
> and distribution of the programs do infringe on the copyright holders 
> exclusive rights-- hence the FSF are free to dictate terms-- terms that 
> may include what Microsoft calls "viral" licensing.

Actually, the GPL is perfectly consistent with copyright law.
There are no restrictions on GPL'd material that aren't on
(let's say) a book.  What the GPL does is allow you to do things
that you *couldn't* under copyright law, as long as you comply
with its restrictions (primarily on derivative works.)

-- 
| May I have the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, |
|  the strength to change the things I cannot accept, and the   |
|    cunning to hide the bodies of those who got in my way.     |
+------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -----------+