Open source shareware?

[Forrest J. Cavalier III]

John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com> wrote:

> Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> 
> 
> > What if the shareware clause was clarified as follows:
> > 
> >    If you decide to run the software after a 30 day evaluation period,
> >    you must pay a fee of $20 to <copyright holder> for the right
> >    to make copies in computer memory for the purposes of running the
> >    software.
> 
> 
> Still won't work, I think.  That kind of copying is, at least
> in the U.S., explicitly permitted by law.  To take away that
> permission, the user would have to have a valid contract with
> the copyright owner.
> 

I went back to find a copy of that recent message I referenced.
I am not a lawyer, and did not read the ruling, but my understanding
is that the context applies here too.  If so, the copyright act
allows my control over that copying.  Where does the OSD prohibit
it?

(My email client may have reformatted lines....)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date sent:        Fri, 14 Sep 2001 18:20:19 -0400 (EDT)
From:             Rod Dixon <rodd at cyberspaces.org>
To:               "Karsten M. Self" <kmself at ix.netcom.com>
Copies to:         <license-discuss at opensource.org>
Subject:          Re: Contract or License?

If I recall correctly, we have discussed this issue before on this list.
It seems to me that Karsten and Larry are saying the same thing, but doing
so using different language. The Copyright Act grants copyright holders
exclusive rights over: reproduction, public display, distribution,
derivative works, public performance (and more recently, digital
transmission of sound recordings). None of those rights explicitly refer
to "use." Indeed, copyright holders cannot control all "uses" of their
works because of various copyright doctrine that preclude such control
such as, scenes-a-faire, idea/expression dichotomy, and fair use. Despite
this fact, however, copyright law and software is not an easy fit, and the
Mai v. Peak case is still good law. Today, a copyright holder may control
the RAM copy of a software copyright-protected work. The fact that a
copyright holder can control his or her work at the level of a RAM copy
may be big trouble for us. Ostensibly, one can hardly "use' software
without the author's permission, if he or she can control copying at the
point of a RAM copy. This practicial consideration, I believe, is
Karsten's point. Indeed, section 117 of the Copyright Act is a limitation
- - a limitation that is quite limited - - on this RAM right (no pun
intended).

Rod


On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Karsten M. Self wrote:

> on Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 09:31:10AM -0700, Lawrence E. Rosen (lrosen at rosenlaw.com) wrote:
> > Karsten,
> >
> > > > Copyright law does not restrict use of an authorized copy.
> > >
> > > It does now.
> > >
> > > Under 1201, there are various uses of a copy which are prohibited.  If
> > > a content control mechanism prohibits certain types of use, then
> > > circumventing the control (arguably a use) is prohibited, under Title
> > > 17.
> >
> > Copyright law does not prohibit use.  It prohibits reverse engineering
> > (and similar activities) under certain circumstances.  I didn't intend
> > to be subtle about the meaning of the word "use."
>
> I hate to be the one to out-lawyer the lawyers....
>
> OK, no I don't. ;-)
>
> But I did want to point out that the expression v. usage boundary has
> now been blurred.
>
> Peace.
>
> --
> Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>          http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
>
> Praying for the victims.
>

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3