Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> amicus_curious wrote:
> > "Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote
> > > 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.
>
> 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 you do
> not have a "lawfully-made copy"). When you purchase a box of
> software, you are not making a copy, and so you are not bound by
> any license when it comes to disposing of it.
>
> The GPL allows you without restriction to make a copy which you do
> not convey. Making copies to convey has restrictions, however.

You're still missing the point. 17 USC 109(a) states, "(a)
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a
particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title".
The *only* relevant license permission is the right to make a copy.
At the *instant* the lawful copy is made, "Notwithstanding the
provisions of section 106(3)" applies. You can "convey, propagate,
distribute" (or any synonyms thereof) the lawfully made copy.

Sincerely,
Rjack