[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: LGPL reverse engineering clause & Java

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: LGPL reverse engineering clause & Java
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 13:43:24 +0100

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.


> 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 


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]