Re: Open source - Free software

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
> 
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Software is not sold.
> >
> > http://cryptome.org/softman-v-adobe.htm
> 
> You are confusing software and media.  

I'm confusing nothing, stupid dak. Man oh man. *DAK* Indus., retard 
dak. Can *you* grok the meaning of "software units" and "transferred 
20,000 copies in the single tangible copy"?

I wrote (starting with softman-v-adobe snippet referring to DAK case
followed by stuff from Nimmer about DAK case):

[...] The court found that the agreement was best characterized as a 
lump sum sale of software units to DAK
------   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^        

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol13/Nimmer/html/text.html#B21

------
Similarly, a software vendor may contractually allow use by a single
user of a copy of "Windows NT" and, in a separate transaction, deliver a
copy of "Windows NT" under a license allowing the licensee to use the
software in a 10,000 site network or allowing it to make 20,000
additional copies for commercial distribution. In the latter case, the
provider, in effect, transferred 20,000 copies in the single tangible
copy.21              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^
------

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol13/Nimmer/html/note.html#N21

------
21. See Microsoft Corp. v. DAK Indus., Inc., 66 F.3d 1091, 1095 (9th
Cir. 1995) (concluding that a distribution agreement involving a lump
sum payment and delivery of a master disk is more like a sale of the
right to make the stated number of copies
------

regards,
alexander.