[lug] Google Chrome Linux "distribution"

[Zan Lynx]

Davide Del Vento wrote:
> Obviously we don't agree at all.
> 
> If you are correct, either I completely misunderstood the Affero
> license, or the Affero license is useless (now, I completely rule out
> this option, since the FSF and many lawyers worked on it for a long
> time before releasing it).
> 
> Or, you are not correct (which I believe is the case, but it does not
> matter what I think, but what the truth is)

Well, it's Law, which means that there isn't a "right" answer. :)

As I read it, Affero bases itself on the idea that modifying the source 
code is enough to require a copyright license. That license would be 
Affero and anyone modifying the code would be required to comply with 
Affero or not have a copyright license.

However, this is where I disagree and as I said in my first email, if we 
do *not* have a fair-use right to modify copyrighted works, then that 
causes a lot of ridiculous effects. So I say, by proof by absurdity (in 
other words, good law should not be absurd), that we must have a 
fair-use right to modify.

Some of the absurd effects would be losing the right to spray paint a 
mustache on an oil painting, cut out pieces of newspapers and magazines, 
and write notes in the margins of books.

-- 
Zan Lynx
zlynx at acm.org

"Knowledge is Power.  Power Corrupts.  Study Hard.  Be Evil."