Re: LGPL reverse engineering clause & Java

[Stefan Monnier]

>> The intent of the "first sale" doctrine of 17 USC 109 is pretty clearly not
>> to allow someone to sell/distribute endless copies of a single object;
>> even if those copies are obtained legally and are not tainted by the
>> "backup" clause.

> And what makes you think so? Well, see 

> http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/quotes/fn1-65.htm

The above is pretty clearly talking about a very different circumstance, so
it's far from clear that a court would consider it relevant in the
circumstance in which you're trying to use it.  That's where the "intent"
comes in.

You seem to consider the set of rules of the legal system as a logic system
and then try to infer whatever you want to prove.  Problem is, this logic
system is inconsistent so you can actually prove anything (and its reverse).
This is not a flaw in the law: it just means that you can't always use the
system as candidly as you do.


        Stefan