Version 2. Open source shareware

[Forrest J. Cavalier III]

John Cowan wrote:

> Won't work (IANAL, TINLA), at least in the U.S.; any copies of
> computer programs that are needed in order to use the program
> are specifically non-infringing, by section 117.  Normally,
> this refers to copying the binary form from disk to core,
> but it plainly would cover compiling if that's required.
> 

That is why the conclusions at MAI vs Peak were such suprising
reading: you can have a copy, but not be an owner of that copy, and 
17 USC 117 is for persons who own a copy.  In MAI vs Peak,
it was established that Peak's customers were licensees,
not owners of a copy, and 17 USC 117 provided no permission.

I am not a lawyer either, and I would not have known about
MAI vs Peak unless it was brought up on this list.  Should I
interpret MAI vs Peak differently?

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