Re: LGPL reverse engineering clause & Java

[Alexander Terekhov]

Drazen Kacar wrote:
[...]
> >  17 USC 109, stupid. It's not a copyright violations to distribute
> >  lawfully made copies that I own.
> 
> I suppose you're refering to:
> 
>     Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a
>     particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any
>     person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the
>     copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that
>     copy or phonorecord.

Yes.

> 
> Note singular in "that copy". 

Yes. And?

>                                And then there's:

It is about rental, lease, or lending (or any other act or 
practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending). I'm not
talking about rental, lease, or lending.

[...]
> But then again, that's applicable just in the USA.

In the EU it is called "copyright exhaustion" and it works quite 
well in Germany (well, apart Munich... I mean the GPL case), for 
example. 

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4108B748.256EF70D%40web.de
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=41A3694D.FAC46ECD%40web.de

regards,
alexander.