[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:59:57 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090812)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
amicus_curious wrote:
"Hyman Rosen" <> wrote
Rjack wrote:
How does an "over-the-air broadcast television program"
relate to an "over-the-internet computer program" licensed
under a FOSS license?

Both of them are legally copied in a way which restricts further distribution of the copies.

You seem to constantly miss the point of the decision by the
District Court. AutoCAD, too, tried to restrict the distribution
of the copy. The copy was purchased legally, presumably, since it
had all the documentation with it just as a copy of a GPL work
might be obtained legally simply by downloading from some source.
The GPL makes no limitation to how the program may be used.

You miss the essential difference - when you download a copy of a
GPLed program, it is you who is making the copy, and therefore you
are bound by the license (if you choose to be; if not, then you do
not have a "lawfully-made copy"). When you purchase a box of
software, you are not making a copy, and so you are not bound by
any license when it comes to disposing of it.

The GPL allows you without restriction to make a copy which you do
not convey. Making copies to convey has restrictions, however.

You're still missing the point. 17 USC 109(a) states, "(a)
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a
particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title".
The *only* relevant license permission is the right to make a copy.
At the *instant* the lawful copy is made, "Notwithstanding the
provisions of section 106(3)" applies. You can "convey, propagate,
distribute" (or any synonyms thereof) the lawfully made copy.


reply via email to

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