[H-GEN] GPL question

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 06:16:27PM +1000, David Starkoff wrote:
> >I thought the situation in Australia was that you don't need a 
> >license, but if you're presented with one, you have to follow its terms, or 
> >something similar.
> I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.  

The bit (s 47B(1)) that says incidental and automatic reproductions
during normal are non-infringing doesn't apply if the copy is "contrary
to an express direction or licence given by, or on behalf of, the owner
of the copyright in the computer program [...]" (s 47B(2)(b)).

> Without a licence (which can be implied), a person can't do any of the acts 
> comprised in the copyright, which includes reproducing the program 
> (which seems to include reproductions made to RAM). 

> Importantly, s 47B doesn't kick in 
> unless "the running of the copy is done by, or on behalf of, the owner 
> or licensee of the copy": Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 47B(1)(b).

Right, but you can sell someone a copy of something without bothering to
write up a license, and 47B means they can do lots of stuff with it.

Stupid copyright law.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj at humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

               Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
           http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004