4 ms·

What you're missing is that the copies aren't being sent to Amazon, Dropbox, or Google. They're being sent to space you are renting from those companies. You ar

What you're missing is that the copies aren't being sent to Amazon, Dropbox, or Google. They're being sent to space you are renting from those companies. You are no more propagating (another important term defined in GPLv3, which conveying is defined in terms of) a work to those companies than you would be if you put a copy of the work in a storage locker, apartment, rented office space, or even a rented car. The copy is not Amazon's, Dropbox's, or Google's, it is yours. It never legally left your control.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> What you're missing is that the copies aren't being sent to Amazon, Dropbox, or Google. What you are missing is that the uploading to those services absolutely is a "kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies." [0] You are, in fact, sending the work to Amazon, Dropbox, or Google, and you are explicitly representing to them that you have, and are exercising, the right to give them permission to make copies of it (and, for some of those services, also to allow third parties to do so.) [1] > You are no more propagating (another important term defined in GPLv3, which conveying is defined in terms of) a work to those companies than you would be if you put a copy of the work in a storage locker, apartment, rented office space, or even a rented car. Propagating work is defined as "to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy." [0] Copyright law (at least, in the US) does not make it an infringement to store physical objects containing a copy of the work in space controlled by a third party without permission of the copyright holder. It does, however, make making a copy (including, e.g., by uploading) without such permission, generally, an infringement [2] So, no, from a legal perspective, the analogy you draw is not valid. [0] GPLv3, Sec. 0 [1] Consider, e.g., the Dropbox terms of service [3], under "Your Stuff and Permissions": When you use our Services, you provide us with things like your files, content, email messages, contacts and so on ("Your Stuff"). [...] We need your permission to do things like hosting Your Stuff, backing it up, and sharing it when you ask us to. [...] You give us permission to do those things, and this permission extends to trusted third parties we work with. [2] See 17 USC Sec. 106 [3] https://www.dropbox.com/terms https://www.dropbox.com/terms
- nknighthb 12y ago
  You're right, that would be propagating, since it's making a copy. In fact, it's also conveyance. But you forgot to keep reading GPLv3. 2. Basic Permissions. [...] You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you. You might still argue about dropbox, since it's neither modifying nor running the works, but certainly using the work on EC2 falls under this provision.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    On review, I think you may be correct with something that is solely an execution service like EC2 (depending on the exact terms in the ToS of that service, though I only see one minor potential problem area -- in terms of the GPL terms under discussion -- related to government requests with the AWS terms that would apply to EC2); but a service of the general type of Drive/Dropbox is still problematic.
    - nknighthb 12y ago
      > government requests with the AWS terms that would apply to EC2 Are you talking about search warrants? I think any interpretation that makes one liable for copyright infringement for the government forcibly making a copy is likely to be laughed out of court. > a service of the general type of Drive/Dropbox is still problematic There is an exceedingly easy workaround if it is a problem: Encrypt it. That way you do not "enable" them to make copies (in any sense a court would care about).

dragonwriter 12y ago

> What you're missing is that the copies aren't being sent to Amazon, Dropbox, or Google. What you are missing is that the uploading to those services absolutely is a "kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies." [0] You are, in fact, sending the work to Amazon, Dropbox, or Google, and you are explicitly representing to them that you have, and are exercising, the right to give them permission to make copies of it (and, for some of those services, also to allow third parties to do so.) [1] > You are no more propagating (another important term defined in GPLv3, which conveying is defined in terms of) a work to those companies than you would be if you put a copy of the work in a storage locker, apartment, rented office space, or even a rented car. Propagating work is defined as "to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy." [0] Copyright law (at least, in the US) does not make it an infringement to store physical objects containing a copy of the work in space controlled by a third party without permission of the copyright holder. It does, however, make making a copy (including, e.g., by uploading) without such permission, generally, an infringement [2] So, no, from a legal perspective, the analogy you draw is not valid. [0] GPLv3, Sec. 0 [1] Consider, e.g., the Dropbox terms of service [3], under "Your Stuff and Permissions": When you use our Services, you provide us with things like your files, content, email messages, contacts and so on ("Your Stuff"). [...] We need your permission to do things like hosting Your Stuff, backing it up, and sharing it when you ask us to. [...] You give us permission to do those things, and this permission extends to trusted third parties we work with. [2] See 17 USC Sec. 106 [3] https://www.dropbox.com/terms https://www.dropbox.com/terms

nknighthb 12y ago
You're right, that would be propagating, since it's making a copy. In fact, it's also conveyance. But you forgot to keep reading GPLv3. 2. Basic Permissions. [...] You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you. You might still argue about dropbox, since it's neither modifying nor running the works, but certainly using the work on EC2 falls under this provision.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  On review, I think you may be correct with something that is solely an execution service like EC2 (depending on the exact terms in the ToS of that service, though I only see one minor potential problem area -- in terms of the GPL terms under discussion -- related to government requests with the AWS terms that would apply to EC2); but a service of the general type of Drive/Dropbox is still problematic.
  - nknighthb 12y ago
    > government requests with the AWS terms that would apply to EC2 Are you talking about search warrants? I think any interpretation that makes one liable for copyright infringement for the government forcibly making a copy is likely to be laughed out of court. > a service of the general type of Drive/Dropbox is still problematic There is an exceedingly easy workaround if it is a problem: Encrypt it. That way you do not "enable" them to make copies (in any sense a court would care about).