Talk:Copyright infringement of software
|This redirect is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Legal article with no law?
For an article ostensibly about a legal topic, there isn't much law in this article. Copyright infringement is not always piracy, and with such broad, vague definitions you could technically infringe software if you write down bits of code by hand to take notes for the purposes of studying coding (unauthorized reproduction, unauthorized derivative work, though arguably a transformative fair use). I propose adding a legal section that actually defines infringement. The legal section reads like a magazine article written by a record exec. trying to sound unbiased. Arttechlaw (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
And what's up with the "high importance" ranking on WikiProject Crime? Criminal copyright infringement is a nasty beast. Ah well, if we must we must. Definition civil infringement, criminal infringement, highlight some cases... The "Preventative Measures" section has some serious POV problems, as well. "Education campaigns in order for people to understand what piracy does to our society, as well as the other negative outcomes."? Arttechlaw (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
GPL (general Public License)
The GPL is not an "open source license", as described in "3.5 Copyright and open source". RMS makes this absolutely clear http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html . If no one objects, I would like to modify the wording here; "open source" is irrelevant when talking about copyright law. Zbuhman (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Software
Update by: jeromy raider: GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 3, 29 June 2007
Copyright © 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <http://fsf.org/>
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works.'''
The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License 'is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program'--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to your programs, too.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.
For the developers' and authors' protection, the GPL clearly explains that there is no warranty for this free software. For both users' and authors' sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to authors of previous versions.
Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of protecting users' freedom to change the software. The systematic pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable. Therefore, we have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those products. If such problems arise substantially in other domains, we stand ready to extend this provision to those domains in future versions of the GPL, as need