From: Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>
Date: 2005-11-08T20:14:40+09:00
Subject: Re: which open source licence?

Selon Eero Saynatkari <ruby-ml@magical-cat.org>:

>
> Sure, it is not exactly a breeze demonstrating in court that it is a
> reasonable request to mandate anyone using your program must wear only
> duck-patterned underwear but it is a reasonable interpretation of
> the applicable laws, particularly with a strict interpretation of
> the copyright law :)
>

In this case, you are the one that is incorrect. Copyright only covers copying
(as its name indicates) and redistributing, basically disallowing both (except
for fair use in some countries). *Use* is *never* covered by copyright. That's
why those "End-User License Agreements" which restrict use are really contracts
rather than copyright licenses, require agreement, and are based on contract law
rather than copyright law.

So it is *not* a reasonable interpretation of the applicable laws to force
specific user patterns with a copyright license, even with the strictest
interpretation of the copyright law you want. Copyright only refers to copying
and distribution. As long as those aren't involved, you can't invoke copyright
law to restrict the end user. If you want to restrict use, you *have* to use a
contract, or one of those EULAs which are often void anyway because they don't
follow contract law.
--
Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

It takes a straight mind to create a twisted conlang.