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

[Hyman Rosen]

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
<http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18372604617204877041>
    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.