Licensing and public performance

Seth David Schoen schoen at loyalty.org
Tue Apr 4 00:53:20 UTC 2000


Andrew J Bromage writes:

> G'day all.
> 
> I'm co-writing some software that is only really useful in a certain
> media industry which doesn't have a history of being very "open" with
> their source.  If it is used within the industry, it will very likely
> be internally modified by media producers and used to produce works,
> and the modified versions will almost certainly not be distributed.
> 
> I'd like to prevent this, but also, obviously, I'd prefer not to
> trample on fair use.  I suspect that the answer lies in restricting
> "public performance".  So let me ask the lawyers and non-lawyers:
> 
> Could I license a program so that if you distribute a work which was
> created using a modified version of the software (which could be
> considered as "public performance" of the software), you must
> redistribute the modifications that you made?  And would it violate
> the OSD?

There have been some rumors that version 3 of the GNU GPL may require
disclosure of source code in some cases of public performance.

I am not sure whether or not the situation you describe counts as
public performance.  If it does, then you may well be able to use the
exclusive right of public performance to impose requirements (like
distributing source code) on people who use the software in that
situation.

The OSD has no particular comment on this, although many people have
felt that it is inappropriate to use a license to violate the privacy
of the users of some software package.  It's hard to say whether
what you're describing would be seen as a privacy violation; other
than that, there is probably no particular exemption, outside of the
fact that nobody has ever yet tried to regulate public performance in
a free software license.  If you try to do it, you'd be the first;
you'd be in very new territory.

-- 
Seth David Schoen <schoen at loyalty.org>  | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp.  http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/  | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down:  http://www.loyalty.org/   (CAF)  | not have leisure.  -- Pirke Avot 2:5



More information about the License-discuss mailing list