[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple

From: Hyman Rosen
Subject: Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:58:47 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2

On 8/10/2010 3:57 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Since the GPL does not specify that title to the copies made is to be
retained by the copyright proprietor, title to the copies belongs to the
licensees who, under the 17 USC 109, is free to distribute the copies
without the authority of the copyright owner.

That's false. Wells, the case you cite, says
    The Supreme Court held that the statutory protection of copyright
    extends only to the original sale by the copyright proprietor and
    protects his exclusive right in and to such sale, but that the
    copyright law cannot be used to enforce contracts restricting the
    purchaser in his transfer of the copyrighted work and that the
    copyright proprietor's only remedy was for breach of contract.

Even if this 1959 case is still good law, it does not mean that the
licensees are free to copy and distribute GPL-covered works without
honoring the license. It just means that the rights holders would
need to sue based on violation of the license terms rather than on
copyright infringement.

reply via email to

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