Re: First sale according to COPYRIGHT LAW

[Alexander Terekhov]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00174.html
> 
> So you pollute debian-legal too...

Sort of. Oh, and I'd like to share my latest posting.

To: Josh Triplett <josh@freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: Distriution of GPL incompatible libraries
Cc: "Glenn L. McGrath" <bug1@iinet.net.au>, debian-legal@lists.debian.org
In-Reply-To: <43EF9385.4040305@freedesktop.org>

On 2/12/06, Josh Triplett <josh@freedesktop.org> wrote:
[...]
> > However, what if the customer then wanted to sell the machine, or if
> > the company wanted to sell machines with this incompatible binary and
> > library preinstalled. Would this violation the GPL, or is it possible
> > that the companies modifcations are "hiding" behind the BSD license
> > library ?
>
> This would violate the GPL.  The violation occurs once you want to
> distribute a GPLed binary linked to a GPL-incompatible library.

Only in the GNU Republic where software belongs to state (and hence it
is regulated by state permits akin to lottery or gun dealership which
are neither contracts nor property rights), and both 17 USC 109 and 17
USC 117 are simply nonexistent. Then comes the doctrine of copyright
misuse... GPL violation of which has raised to the level of antitrust
violation according to Wallace... and according to Prof. Nadan it
doesn't even have to raise to the level of antitrust violation because
linking claims alone are sufficient to put the entire GPL'd code base
into quasi public domain (the penalty for copyright misuse). So pick
your choice, GNUtians.

regards,
alexander.