Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed

[amicus_curious]

"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message 
news:X8aBm.142618$Y83.11201@newsfe21.iad...
> Rjack wrote:
> > How does an "over-the-air broadcast television program" relate
> > to an "over-the-internet computer program" licensed under a FOSS license?
>
> Both of them are legally copied in a way which restricts
> further distribution of the copies.

You seem to constantly miss the point of the decision by the District Court. 
AutoCAD, too, tried to restrict the distribution of the copy.  The copy was 
purchased legally, presumably, since it had all the documentation with it 
just as a copy of a GPL work might be obtained legally simply by downloading 
from some source.  The GPL makes no limitation to how the program may be 
used.  The GPL does try to restrict how the possessor of the copy passes it 
to another in that it requires a copy of the source to accompany the 
transfer or at least a way for the receiver to obtain a copy of the source. 
That is more liberal than prohibition as tried by AutoCAD, but it is a 
limiting condition nonetheless.  The decision in court was that those 
prohibitions do not apply due to doctrine of first sale.  They don't apply 
to the AutoCAD license and they don't apply to the GPL license.  They don't 
apply to Microsoft's licenses either.  Until, of course the 9th Circuit sees 
fit to say no to the idea.

Are over the air copies of a work restricted in some way from being given to 
another?