Re: [!NEWS] The GNUtards Must Be Crazy

[Hyman Rosen]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> The court's holding was:
> "Following the district court, we treat the licenses as ordinary contracts..."
> As for "Whether..." and "another day"...
> June 20, 1996

I suppose that the issue will be addressed at some point
when a case goes to trial in which it matters.

> One significant effect of § 109(a) is to limit the exclusive right 
> to distribute copies to their first voluntary disposition, and thus 
> negate copyright owner control over further or "downstream" transfer 
> to a third party.

Of course. This is the ordinary first sale doctrine. It applies to
the physical purchased copy. It obviously does not allow more copies
to be made and sold. The GPL does allow that, if its requirements are
followed.

> Other courts have reached the same conclusion: software is sold 
> and not licensed.

Again, this is obviously true. It follows the famous Borland dictum
of "treat this like a book". And again, this applies to the single
physical purchased copy, and again is entirely irrelevant to the GPL,
which allows users to make and distribute further copies.

There is no question that anyone may dispose of a purchased original
copy of GPLed code in any way he likes. There is also no question that
further copies and distribution of GPLed code may be made only in
accordance with the dictates of the GPL.

Once again, you have posted quotes that are at best neutral with
respect to your (incorrect) claims. They are certainly not supportive
of them. Perhaps you should read your sources instead of massively
quoting them to Usenet.