Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Just as a note, debian list policy is to _not_ Cc: individuals unless > they explicitly ask for it, or set appropriate MFT:'s. I have done > neither, so you need not Cc: me.] > > On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote: > >> Anthony is quite reasonable in presuming that the current > >> interpretation of "Fair Use" applies to cases where there is no > >> copying taking place. > > > > I think this is fundamentally unsound, given Texaco. I gave an actual > > Fair Use analysis in another message. > > Fortunatly, AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION v. TEXACO INC., 60 F.3d 913 > (2nd Cir. 1994) is a rather narrow decision, and applies to a case > where there actually was distribution (albiet internal) and where > there was "institutional, systematic copying."[1] > > I'm still at a loss as to how you intend for the this decision to > apply to the elimination of Fair Use rights of software. Furthermore, > I'd hope that RMS and others would prefer that people be able to do > with software as they wished in their own homes, so long as they > didn't distribute it.
I've also read through the whole decision, and I can't see anywhere that it talks about modifications not being fair use. It only talks about copying. In fact, it seems to argue that if there had been modifications (creating a transformative work) then there would be a better defense against the copying. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
