[lug] Google Chrome Linux "distribution"

Zan Lynx zlynx at acm.org
Fri Jul 10 13:32:07 MDT 2009

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."

More information about the LUG mailing list