From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Subject: Re: OSD modification regarding what license can require of user
To: nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 23:47:48 -0500 (EST)
Cc: brian@collab.net, license-discuss@opensource.org, rms@gnu.org,
        moglen@columbia.edu
In-Reply-To: <15505.30539.166565.265026@desk.crynwr.com> from "Russell Nelson" at Mar 14, 2002 11:26:24 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]

Russell Nelson scripsit:

> http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html

I don't find DJB's claim that private modifications are allowed
credible.  His quotation from the CONTU Final Report is misleadingly
selective.  A fuller quotation states:

        Thus a right to make those changes necessary to enable
        the use for which it was both sold and purchased
        should be provided. The conversion of a program from
        one higher-level language to another to facilitate
        use would fall within this right, as would the right
        to add features to the program that were not present
        at the time of rightful acquisition.

Note the conditional: "should be provided".  There is no evidence
that the right (implicitly a new one) was in fact added to 17 U.S.C.

>> perform, *and* to make derivative works based on the copyrighted
>> work.
> 
> An ASP desires to do none of these.

The concern here is with an ASP making private modifications to its
version of the program.  Those private modifications create a derivative
work.

-- 
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>     http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_