|
From: | Rjack |
Subject: | Re: First Sale upheld in software case |
Date: | Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:10:58 -0400 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) |
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:"In light of their facts, those cases thus stand for the entirelyunremarkable principle that “uses” that violate a license agreement constitute copyright infringement only when those uses would infringe in the absence of any license agreement at all."Fortunately, since copying and distributing computer programs infringes upon the author's copyrights in the absence of any license agreement at all, the JMRI decision continues to be perfectly sound.
Nobody said copying and distributing without permission (which the Artistic License *does* freely permit) wasn't infringement. The attribution requirement wasn't a "condition" to the license -- it was a contractual covenant. There is no right of attribution listed in 17 USC 106. Sincerely, Rjack -- "In light of their facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely unremarkable principle that “uses” that violate a license agreement constitute copyright infringement only when those uses would infringe in the absence of any license agreement at all."; Storage Technology Corp. v. Custom Hardware Engineering Inc., 421 F.3d 1307 (CAFC) --
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |