Re: LGPL reverse engineering clause & Java

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> party in question stop distributing your software in violation of your
>> copyright as long as it is not in compliance with the conditions of
>> the GPL.
>
> 17 USC 109, stupid.

Ah, the old "when Alexander is running out of arguments, he indicates
this with insults" scheme.

> It's not a copyright violations to distribute lawfully made copies
> that I own.

Not?  So when I acquire a copy of Microsoft Windows, and make 50 legal
backup copies of it, I can sell those copies again, and it is not a
copyright violation?

Are you sure about that?  Really, really, sure?  I would certainly not
want to go out on a limb like that without you promising very solemnly
that you are quite sure.

> Thank you for your unilateral permission to make copies

Oh, but it was a conditional permission with strings attached.  The
GPL.

> and for public availability of your work all over the net. I don't
> need another permission to distribute from you in addition to "first
> sale" limitation of your exclusive distribution right.

First sale?  So what did you pay me to make this "first sale"?  Would
that also mean that if a newspaper has an online edition, I am free to
take parts of their articles, claim them as my own and republish them,
according to some first sale availability all over the net?  Or
something?

Are you really sure it is prudent to start your "stupid" calls right
before making such claims?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum