[OT] Choosing an open source license

I'm working on a server program and I'm trying to decide which open
source license to use for it.

Normally I'd just go with GPL, but there's one concern I have about
GPL: If I'm not mistaken, it allows people to modify their software,
and they don't have to release their modifications if they don't
distribute the software to anyone.

Since my program is a *server* program, I'm concerned that if I release
it under GPL, other people can make improvements to their servers, and
run their improved servers without sharing their improvements with
everyone else.

Is there an existing well-known open-source license that says "you must
submit any changes you make to the author, even if you aren't
distributing the application to anyone"?

I don't suspect you'll get anybody to use your software then.

*I* sure wouldn't.

Besides, how are you going to find this people to prosecute them?

···

On 12 Sep 2005, at 18:41, debbie@theanimaro.com wrote:

Is there an existing well-known open-source license that says "you must
submit any changes you make to the author, even if you aren't
distributing the application to anyone"?

--
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://segment7.net
FEC2 57F1 D465 EB15 5D6E 7C11 332A 551C 796C 9F04

debbie@theanimaro.com wrote:

I'm working on a server program and I'm trying to decide which open
source license to use for it.

Normally I'd just go with GPL, but there's one concern I have about
GPL: If I'm not mistaken, it allows people to modify their software,
and they don't have to release their modifications if they don't
distribute the software to anyone.

Since my program is a *server* program, I'm concerned that if I release
it under GPL, other people can make improvements to their servers, and
run their improved servers without sharing their improvements with
everyone else.

Is there an existing well-known open-source license that says "you must
submit any changes you make to the author, even if you aren't
distributing the application to anyone"?

This isn't very typical of the open source model. One of the attractions to using open source is that I can download your program, and customize it to work for my specific needs. You can however determine if I have the right to turnaround and sell it or not.

But, making demands that if I change the application in any way... that I need to submit that change to you isn't like anything I've seen in open source licensing. How would you determine this? Does changing the configuration file or the path to /usr/bin/ruby to /usr/local/bin/ruby in the top of your ruby script violate your license? If so, not many people will be interested...and where do you draw the line as to what is acceptable modifications?

-Robby

I'm working on a server program and I'm trying to decide which open
source license to use for it.

Normally I'd just go with GPL, but there's one concern I have about
GPL: If I'm not mistaken, it allows people to modify their software,
and they don't have to release their modifications if they don't
distribute the software to anyone.

Since my program is a *server* program, I'm concerned that if I release
it under GPL, other people can make improvements to their servers, and
run their improved servers without sharing their improvements with
everyone else.

Is there an existing well-known open-source license that says "you must

submit any changes you make to the author, even if you aren't
distributing the application to anyone"?

IF the GPL was as restrictive as that, it would never have taken off. It
might as well be proprietary at that point from the practical perspective of
many who use open source software. If your license is that restrictive, not
only will you turn away the people that you don't want, but probably the
people you do as well. And at that point you have to ask yourself what have
you really accomplished by making the license that restrictive?

My suggestion? Compromise. You won't get everything you want, but at least
your project might be used (and therefore useful to more people).

Chris

···

On 9/12/05, debbie@theanimaro.com <debbie@theanimaro.com> wrote:

See Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
You want to use the Affero GPL to achieve the desired effect
Affero.org

That said I agree with the answer of many posters in this list: I think it
is a bad idea to limit the use of your software like this.

P@

PS: I am not a lawier either:-)

···

On 9/13/05, debbie@theanimaro.com <debbie@theanimaro.com> wrote:

I'm working on a server program and I'm trying to decide which open
source license to use for it.

Normally I'd just go with GPL, but there's one concern I have about
GPL: If I'm not mistaken, it allows people to modify their software,
and they don't have to release their modifications if they don't
distribute the software to anyone.

Since my program is a *server* program, I'm concerned that if I release
it under GPL, other people can make improvements to their servers, and
run their improved servers without sharing their improvements with
everyone else.

Is there an existing well-known open-source license that says "you must
submit any changes you make to the author, even if you aren't
distributing the application to anyone"?

--
Patrick Chanezon, AdWords API evangelist
http://blog.chanezon.com/

You'd discover them advertising their server for open use and notice it's not
your version...

My opinion on this is that if you put some kind of MUST command in the license
like that people will shy away from it hardcore. I would rely on karma and
simply put 'the author requests that any changes you make to the server
software be submitted back to the author so said changes can be merged into
the main trunk if deemed approproate..."

But when you really think about it, the POINT of free software is to allow you
to take someone else's work and create a competing branch if that's what
needs to be done, so I'm guessing you'll have a hard time finding a pre-made
open source license that does what you're looking for. The GPL specifically
is careful to make sure future changes don't need the permission of the
current author, and that's a good thing for free software IMHO.

···

On Monday 12 September 2005 19:50, Eric Hodel wrote:

On 12 Sep 2005, at 18:41, debbie@theanimaro.com wrote:
> Is there an existing well-known open-source license that says "you
> must
> submit any changes you make to the author, even if you aren't
> distributing the application to anyone"?

I don't suspect you'll get anybody to use your software then.

*I* sure wouldn't.

Besides, how are you going to find this people to prosecute them?

Patrick Chanezon wrote:

See Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
You want to use the Affero GPL to achieve the desired effect Affero.org

Damn! Someone beat me to it :slight_smile: .

Note however that this is a well-known problem, the so-called "web services" problem. Stallman said he would tackle this problem for the 3rd version of the GPL.

That said I agree with the answer of many posters in this list: I think it is a bad idea to limit the use of your software like this.

I disagree on that statement. Having to send your changes back to the author is indeed a bit too much indeed. But Free Software is about protecting both the rights of the author but also the rights of the *user* of software, rights which are considered fundamental, and ensuring equity between the two. Its goal is ethical. And taking Free Software, making changes to it, and then only let users use it as a web service through a browser and deny them access to the source code because you are not "distributing" the application may be legal, but it sure isn't ethical and is against the spirit of Free Software. It's basically closing the source of an originally Free Software, and is one of the reasons why a licence like BSD is not acceptable to people like me. If one can close the source code, it's not Free Software. True freedom always has limits ("the freedom of the one stops where the freedom of the other begin). Web services based on Free Software which don't distribute the code to their users break the principle on which Free Software was built.

Saying that asking web service makers to distribute their code if they let users others then themselves or their own corporation is too restrictive is like saying that the GPL is too restrictive and everyone should use BSD-style licences. The additional restrictions of the GPL compared to the BSD licence ensure that *everyone* in the chain of users and/or (re)distributors enjoy the *same* Freedom, and can never prevent others to enjoy that same Freedom too. Closed-source web services based on Free Software is an attempt to break that chain of Freedom, and thus isn't ethically acceptable, and it is *not* too restrictive to prevent this phenomenon from happening.

As for whether such a restriction would be unacceptable to most people, I really disagree. When the GPL first appeared, the BSD licence was so far the main Open Source licence, and many people used the same arguments as I see now on this thread to convince others that the GPL was too restrictive and that everyone should stick to BSD licences. But what is the most popular Open Source licence nowadays? And which one proved to ensure the most people enjoyed the most Freedom? Yep, that's the GPL. Those arguments were incorrect then, and are still off the mark now.

···

--
Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.

But when you really think about it, the POINT of free software is to
allow you to take someone else's work and create a competing branch if
that's what needs to be done, so I'm guessing you'll have a hard time
finding a pre-made open source license that does what you're looking
for. The GPL specifically is careful to make sure future changes
don't need the permission of the current author, and that's a good
thing for free software IMHO.

I agree to the two things that you stated above: (1) "allow you to take
someone else's work and create a competing branch", and (2) "future
changes don't need the permission of the current author".

I don't understand how that conflicts with my idea of "you must submit
any changes you make to the author, even if you aren't distributing the
application to anyone".

Regarding point (1), they can create a competing branch, but if they're
going to run game servers based on my code that compete with mine and
they make improvements to their game servers, I'd want them to release
their improvements to the public. And regarding point (2), they don't
need my permission to make changes, they just need to distribute those
changes.

Remember, I'm not talking about typical desktop software here; I'm
talking about server software. I don't want people using my code base
to
create competing game servers that are closed-source; that's all...

I will not use software that has this restriction. Period. Over time,
I will be changing my software that is stuck under the GPL to freeze
it at GPL2, because I believe that the Affero/GPL3 direction is going
to be a debacle and a mistake. I don't trust Stallman or Moglen on
this, because they've already made mistakes with their dicta regarding
dynamic linking.

BSD is a far better choice than GNU GPL for most software, and you'll
note that some of the most useful GNU GPLed software has an exlusion
clause in any case.

-austin

···

On 9/13/05, Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@free.fr> wrote:

As for whether such a restriction would be unacceptable to most people,
I really disagree. When the GPL first appeared, the BSD licence was so
far the main Open Source licence, and many people used the same
arguments as I see now on this thread to convince others that the GPL
was too restrictive and that everyone should stick to BSD licences. But
what is the most popular Open Source licence nowadays? And which one
proved to ensure the most people enjoyed the most Freedom? Yep, that's
the GPL. Those arguments were incorrect then, and are still off the mark
now.

--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca

That said I agree with the answer of many posters in this list: I think it is a bad idea to limit the use of your software like this.

I disagree on that statement. Having to send your changes back to the author is indeed a bit too much indeed. But Free Software is about protecting both the rights of the author but also the rights of the *user* of software, rights which are considered fundamental, and ensuring equity between the two.

I would disagree with that portion of your statement, in that the goal of "Copyright" is to protect the rights of the author(s), the idea of free software is more so that of sharing ideas with others (this same idiom can be used with lots of different topics, not just software).

Its goal is ethical. And taking Free Software, making changes to it, and then only let users use it as a web service through a browser and deny them access to the source code because you are not "distributing" the application may be legal, but it sure isn't ethical and is against the spirit of Free Software. It's basically closing the source of an originally Free Software, and is one of the reasons why a licence like BSD is not acceptable to people like me. If one can close the source code, it's not Free Software. True freedom always has limits ("the freedom of the one stops where the freedom of the other begin). Web services based on Free Software which don't distribute the code to their users break the principle on which Free Software was built.

Saying that asking web service makers to distribute their code if they let users others then themselves or their own corporation is too restrictive is like saying that the GPL is too restrictive and everyone should use BSD-style licences. The additional restrictions of the GPL compared to the BSD licence ensure that *everyone* in the chain of users and/or (re)distributors enjoy the *same* Freedom, and can never prevent others to enjoy that same Freedom too. Closed-source web services based on Free Software is an attempt to break that chain of Freedom, and thus isn't ethically acceptable, and it is *not* too restrictive to prevent this phenomenon from happening.

As for whether such a restriction would be unacceptable to most people, I really disagree. When the GPL first appeared, the BSD licence was so far the main Open Source licence, and many people used the same arguments as I see now on this thread to convince others that the GPL was too restrictive and that everyone should stick to BSD licences. But what is the most popular Open Source licence nowadays? And which one proved to ensure the most people enjoyed the most Freedom? Yep, that's the GPL. Those arguments were incorrect then, and are still off the mark now.

This last bit, I'm not going to bite on, I'll just say i disagree, and let it stay at that.

···

On 13-Sep-05, at 4:27 PM, Christophe Grandsire wrote:

Christophe Grandsire.

--
Jeremy Tregunna
jtregunna@blurgle.ca

"If debugging is the process of removing bugs, then programming must be the process of putting them in." --Dykstra

I disagree on that statement. Having to send your changes back to the
author is indeed a bit too much indeed. But Free Software is about
protecting both the rights of the author but also the rights of the
*user* of software, rights which are considered fundamental, and
ensuring equity between the two. Its goal is ethical. And taking Free
Software, making changes to it, and then only let users use it as a web
service through a browser and deny them access to the source code
because you are not "distributing" the application may be legal, but it
sure isn't ethical and is against the spirit of Free Software. It's
basically closing the source of an originally Free Software, and is one
of the reasons why a licence like BSD is not acceptable to people like
me. If one can close the source code, it's not Free Software. True
freedom always has limits ("the freedom of the one stops where the
freedom of the other begin). Web services based on Free Software which
don't distribute the code to their users break the principle on which
Free Software was built.

Interesting definition of ethical. If I use software as the license
dictates, which the creator put under that license on purpose, It's
unethical to use it according to the terms layed down by the author? So even
if the author fully understood that his software could be used and modified
by a commercial entity to run a service, it would still be unethical. Who
are you to make such an imposition on the free will of the author? Why would
you take away his right to license his software as he wants? The bottom line
here is that the 'software wants to be free' crowd really wants to dictate
to me how I can license something I created because they think it is for the
better good. If they are honest enough to take their argument to it's
conclusion, the only way they will ever get free people to abide by their
definition of free is through the coercion of some government.

Chris

+1

---<other good stuff snipped (above and below)>---

Randy Kramer

···

On Tuesday 13 September 2005 04:27 pm, Christophe Grandsire wrote:

The additional restrictions of the GPL
compared to the BSD licence ensure that *everyone* in the chain of users
and/or (re)distributors enjoy the *same* Freedom, and can never prevent
others to enjoy that same Freedom too. Closed-source web services based
on Free Software is an attempt to break that chain of Freedom, and thus
isn't ethically acceptable, and it is *not* too restrictive to prevent
this phenomenon from happening.

debbie@theanimaro.com wrote:
...

Regarding point (1), they can create a competing branch, but if they're
going to run game servers based on my code that compete with mine and
they make improvements to their game servers, I'd want them to release
their improvements to the public. And regarding point (2), they don't
need my permission to make changes, they just need to distribute those
changes.

Remember, I'm not talking about typical desktop software here; I'm
talking about server software. I don't want people using my code base
to
create competing game servers that are closed-source; that's all...

I believe this issue has come up with regards to companies such as Google, who take OSS, and alter it for their needs, and effectively distribute the behavior of their application through a browser, while not actually distributing the application itself as a binary, skirting the requirements to release the source code.

The increased prevalence of Web-based applications has led some to wonder if a new definition of "distribute" is needed.

It may be more reasonable to to require that people must make their source code available on demand if the services provided by that software is available to the public. So, if AmEx, for example, makes mods to some server code, but only uses the software in-house, they're under no obligation to release the code. But if they use it to power a public Web site or Internet service, then they are effectively (so one argument goes) "distributing" the application and must offer source on demand.

James

···

--

http://www.ruby-doc.org - The Ruby Documentation Site
http://www.rubyxml.com - News, Articles, and Listings for Ruby & XML
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys

debbie@theanimaro.com wrote:

But when you really think about it, the POINT of free software is to
allow you to take someone else's work and create a competing branch if
that's what needs to be done, so I'm guessing you'll have a hard time
finding a pre-made open source license that does what you're looking
for. The GPL specifically is careful to make sure future changes
don't need the permission of the current author, and that's a good
thing for free software IMHO.
   

Regarding point (1), they can create a competing branch, but if they're
going to run game servers based on my code that compete with mine and
they make improvements to their game servers, I'd want them to release
their improvements to the public. And regarding point (2), they don't
need my permission to make changes, they just need to distribute those
changes.

I don't belive there are any well known licenses that will meet #2. (unless they are distributing it)

Remember, I'm not talking about typical desktop software here; I'm
talking about server software. I don't want people using my code base
to
create competing game servers that are closed-source; that's all...

The GPL would pretty much cover this requirement... but it doesn't require that the person who downloads and modifies it do anything to redistribute it. However, if they are distributing it in binary form, then they are required to provide sources.

You can prevent them from selling it and distributing it.. but if they take your code and build a huge server farm running off your code base and keep it in-house, they can't be required to give the changes to you or anyone.

-Robby

I now have a much better idea where you're coming from. I'm still not sure if
you'll find what you're looking for... Perhaps you should state that your
license is GPL with the explicit provision that allowing a client to connect
to the server is in effect distributing a portion of the application, thereby
forcing any changes that have been made to that version to also come under
the terms of the GPL? (I'm not a lawyer)

···

On Monday 12 September 2005 20:41, debbie@theanimaro.com wrote:

> But when you really think about it, the POINT of free software is to
> allow you to take someone else's work and create a competing branch if
> that's what needs to be done, so I'm guessing you'll have a hard time
> finding a pre-made open source license that does what you're looking
> for. The GPL specifically is careful to make sure future changes
> don't need the permission of the current author, and that's a good
> thing for free software IMHO.

I agree to the two things that you stated above: (1) "allow you to take
someone else's work and create a competing branch", and (2) "future
changes don't need the permission of the current author".

I don't understand how that conflicts with my idea of "you must submit
any changes you make to the author, even if you aren't distributing the
application to anyone".

Regarding point (1), they can create a competing branch, but if they're
going to run game servers based on my code that compete with mine and
they make improvements to their game servers, I'd want them to release
their improvements to the public. And regarding point (2), they don't
need my permission to make changes, they just need to distribute those
changes.

Remember, I'm not talking about typical desktop software here; I'm
talking about server software. I don't want people using my code base
to
create competing game servers that are closed-source; that's all...

I don't understand how that conflicts with my idea of "you must submit
any changes you make to the author, even if you aren't distributing the
application to anyone".

Well your idea here wouldn't stand up in a court of law (in the USA or Canada, probably other countries depending on their "Fair Use" copyright provisions). I can, for example, take a piece of your software and redistribute it under the "Fair Use" copyright provision under some circumstances (for example, parody); and not be hindered by your copyright on that code, so how do you expect to be able to enforce this? Most copyright laws allow for a handful of situations where copyright may be "circumvented" (not the right word, but I can't think of the right word right now); and in these cases, you have no rights to enforce any of the rights granted to you under copyright law. I suggest you consult the copyright law in your country for more information on these restrictions (if they exist).

Remember, I'm not talking about typical desktop software here; I'm
talking about server software. I don't want people using my code base
to
create competing game servers that are closed-source; that's all...

The law doesn't care (in most jurisdictions I'm familiar with) if you're writing a poem or a piece of software, it's all the same under copyright law. So naturally, the distinction between "server software" and "desktop software" does not exist.

···

On 12-Sep-05, at 10:41 PM, debbie@theanimaro.com wrote:

--
Jeremy Tregunna
jtregunna@blurgle.ca

"If debugging is the process of removing bugs, then programming must be the process of putting them in." --Dykstra

hi austin-

i always release my stuff under the ruby liscense - any problems with this? i
often don't even put my name on it because i want to encourage people to use
it however they see fit.

-a

···

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Austin Ziegler wrote:

I will not use software that has this restriction. Period. Over time,
I will be changing my software that is stuck under the GPL to freeze
it at GPL2, because I believe that the Affero/GPL3 direction is going
to be a debacle and a mistake. I don't trust Stallman or Moglen on
this, because they've already made mistakes with their dicta regarding
dynamic linking.

BSD is a far better choice than GNU GPL for most software, and you'll
note that some of the most useful GNU GPLed software has an exlusion
clause in any case.

--

email :: ara [dot] t [dot] howard [at] noaa [dot] gov
phone :: 303.497.6469
Your life dwells amoung the causes of death
Like a lamp standing in a strong breeze. --Nagarjuna

===============================================================================

Sorry for the extra post, but I thought it prudent I mention that I am not a lawyer, no pretend to be.

···

On 13-Sep-05, at 3:13 AM, Jeremy Tregunna wrote:

On 12-Sep-05, at 10:41 PM, debbie@theanimaro.com wrote:

I don't understand how that conflicts with my idea of "you must submit
any changes you make to the author, even if you aren't distributing the
application to anyone".

Well your idea here wouldn't stand up in a court of law (in the USA or Canada, probably other countries depending on their "Fair Use" copyright provisions). I can, for example, take a piece of your software and redistribute it under the "Fair Use" copyright provision under some circumstances (for example, parody); and not be hindered by your copyright on that code, so how do you expect to be able to enforce this? Most copyright laws allow for a handful of situations where copyright may be "circumvented" (not the right word, but I can't think of the right word right now); and in these cases, you have no rights to enforce any of the rights granted to you under copyright law. I suggest you consult the copyright law in your country for more information on these restrictions (if they exist).

Remember, I'm not talking about typical desktop software here; I'm
talking about server software. I don't want people using my code base
to
create competing game servers that are closed-source; that's all...

The law doesn't care (in most jurisdictions I'm familiar with) if you're writing a poem or a piece of software, it's all the same under copyright law. So naturally, the distinction between "server software" and "desktop software" does not exist.

--
Jeremy Tregunna
jtregunna@blurgle.ca

"If debugging is the process of removing bugs, then programming must be the process of putting them in." --Dykstra

!DSPAM:43267b1f52298788317418!

--
Jeremy Tregunna
jtregunna@blurgle.ca

"If debugging is the process of removing bugs, then programming must be the process of putting them in." --Dykstra

I would suggest that you join two other mail lists, lurk a little while, and
then ask your question there.

Darn, I can't find the second mail list, iirc, it was something like
"license-discuss@"<somewhere>, and the other is fsb@crynwr.com. (I'm
guessing that you could find the first by Googling, and (guessing again) that
you can subscribe to either with the typical "-request"/'subscribe"
"trick" (add -request to, e.g., fsb, and then send an email to that address
with "subscribe" in the subject and body of the email.

The point about servers is, iirc, one of the issues that the new version of
the GPL (version 3) is struggling to deal with.

I'll be cusious as to the conclusion you come to, so post back on this list.

Let me go check Google for "license-discuss"--ahh there it is, but I got the
subscription approach wrong: "To subscribe, send mail to
license-discuss-subscribe@opensource.org". (I'm about to resubscribe, as it
seems that I haven't seen anything from them in quite a while, yet the list
appears to still be active based on the archives.)

BTW, the focus of license-discuss is approval (or disapproval) of new open
source licenses (there is an effort going on to avoid proliferation of
licenses with similar but slightly different terms), and the focus of fsb is
"free software businesses", i.e., finding ways to create and sustain
businesses based on free/open software.

hope this helps, and sorry for not having a "pat" answer--the subject of how
to deal with servers is unresolved

regards,
Randy Kramer

···

On Tuesday 13 September 2005 12:00 am, Kevin Brown wrote:

On Monday 12 September 2005 20:41, debbie@theanimaro.com wrote:
> I don't understand how that conflicts with my idea of "you must submit
> any changes you make to the author, even if you aren't distributing the
> application to anyone".
>
> Regarding point (1), they can create a competing branch, but if they're
> going to run game servers based on my code that compete with mine and
> they make improvements to their game servers, I'd want them to release
> their improvements to the public. And regarding point (2), they don't
> need my permission to make changes, they just need to distribute those
> changes.
>
> Remember, I'm not talking about typical desktop software here; I'm
> talking about server software. I don't want people using my code base
> to
> create competing game servers that are closed-source; that's all...

I now have a much better idea where you're coming from. I'm still not sure
if you'll find what you're looking for... Perhaps you should state that
your license is GPL with the explicit provision that allowing a client to
connect to the server is in effect distributing a portion of the
application, thereby forcing any changes that have been made to that
version to also come under the terms of the GPL? (I'm not a lawyer)

In article <6b82a3ba9cb48620e67cc0ec26004fbb@blurgle.ca>,
jtregunna@blurgle.ca says...

Well your idea here wouldn't stand up in a court of law (in the USA or
Canada, probably other countries depending on their "Fair Use"
copyright provisions). I can, for example, take a piece of your
software and redistribute it under the "Fair Use" copyright provision
under some circumstances (for example, parody); and not be hindered by
your copyright on that code, so how do you expect to be able to enforce
this?

Jeremy, I think you're misunderstanding the basic legal foundations of
software licenses, at least in the US. Copyright gives the author the
ability to control who copies it. Without some sort of license from the
author, or some sort of purchase, you don't have the right to copy and
distribute the code at ALL. Open-source licenses take advantage of
that, and say that you DO have the right to copy the software, IF you do
X, Y, and Z. Otherwise, or if the license is invalid, you have no right
to copy it. Clever, eh?

Now, a license where X, Y and Z include "running this software on a
server is considered distribution" may not exist. And if it does, it
may or may not meet the OSF's definition of "Open Source" - I don't
know. But such a license could certainly be drafted, as could any other
license whose terms aren't contrary to any other laws.

Also, you'd would have a very, very difficult time redistributing
software as a "parody", or any other Fair Use. And Fair Use isn't a
"provision", at least in the U.S. - it's a concept, embodied in court
rulings. It's not spelled out anywhere, and it's not a right; it's just
an affirmative defense against copyright violations. Authors in the US
have every legal right to prevent you from making what otherwise might
be considered "Fair Use" copies - witness the controversial protection
on DVDs or copy-protected CDs.

I have no idea what copyright is like in Canada. IANAL either but I've
spent lots of time following IP laws.

···

--
Jay Levitt |
Wellesley, MA | I feel calm. I feel ready. I can only
Faster: jay at jay dot fm | conclude that's because I don't have a
http://www.jay.fm | full grasp of the situation. - Mark Adler