[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed |
Date: |
Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:58:55 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux) |
Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
> [...]
>> You miss the essential difference - when you download a copy of
>> a GPLed program, it is you who is making the copy, and therefore
>> you are bound by the license (if you choose to be; if not, then
>
> Let NYSD.USCOURTS.GOV know about that, Hyman. <chuckles>
>
> http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/01-07482.PDF
>
> <quote>
>
> unlike the user of Netscape Navigator or other click-wrap or shrink-
> wrap licensees, the individual obtaining SmartDownload is not made
> aware that he is entering into a contract. SmartDownload is available
> from Netscape's web site free of charge. Before downloading the
> software, the user need not view any license agreement terms or even
> any reference to a license agreement, and need not do anything to
> manifest assent to such a license agreement other than actually
> taking possession of the product. From the user's vantage point,
> SmartDownload could be analogized to a free neighborhood newspaper,
> readily obtained from a sidewalk box or supermarket counter without
> any exchange with a seller or vender. It is there for the taking.
>
> [...]
But I can't take the "free neighbourhood newspaper", snap photographs of
its underwear models and sell them to underwear admirers. That is, I am
free to take the literal existing copies. I can hand them on. But
nothing allows me to create my own copies with my own copying mechanism
or _modify_ existing copies and create derivatives for distributing.
What I _can_ do is grab every free neighbourhood newspaper I can get and
sell them on Ebay. But I can't make my own copies or modifications
without permission and distribute them as original works.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, (continued)
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Hyman Rosen, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Tim Smith, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Rjack, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Hyman Rosen, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, amicus_curious, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Hyman Rosen, 2009/10/14
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/10/14
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, amicus_curious, 2009/10/14
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Rjack, 2009/10/14
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Hyman Rosen, 2009/10/14
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/10/14
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Hyman Rosen, 2009/10/14
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/10/14
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Hyman Rosen, 2009/10/14
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Rjack, 2009/10/14
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Hyman Rosen, 2009/10/14
Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/10/13