Wired Article on the GPL

John Cowan jcowan at reutershealth.com
Mon Apr 3 18:57:34 UTC 2000


"W. Yip" wrote:

> [Why does GPL have section *zero* ?]

Computer people like to number things from zero, especially if section
zero is of an introductory nature.
 
>         'The act of running the Program is not restricted.'
> 
> This is not very helpful either. It is 'not restricted'. Does that mean
> (i) it is permitted, or does it mean
> (ii) the ordinary copyright rules (ie. fair use + exclusivity) apply?

Running the program is not part of the copyright rights-bundle: when you
acquire the program sans EULA-style license, you are an owner of that copy, and
you can run it because that is analogous to reading a book that you own.
 
> Courts (at least UK) are not in favour of dishonesty, as in your example
> involving lying, and there are remedies under the law of equity such as
> injunctions and specific performance which can go against your revocation.
> Depending on facts, a licensee can also establish 'detrimental reliance'
> under the doctrine of estoppel.

Good point.
 
-- 

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)



More information about the License-discuss mailing list