From: "Jon A. Lambert" <jlsysinc@...>
Date: 2005-11-08T20:39:30+09:00
Subject: Re: which open source licence?

Christophe Grandsire wrote:
> 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.

Wrong!
The five copyrights of the authors in the US are as follows...

To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or 
other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, 
and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other 
audiovisual works;
To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, 
dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or 
sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or 
other audiovisual work; and in the case of sound recordings, to perform the 
work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Computer programs and software are generally covered under the literary 
rules, unless they also include music and art.

Under Canadian copyright law and I suspect some European law, author's also 
have rights of attribution.


--
J Lambert