Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> Rjack wrote:
> > The *only* relevant license permission is the right to make a copy.
> 
> And that permission is granted without restriction by the
> GPL for copies which are not to be conveyed. You cannot use

http://cyberlawcases.com/2009/10/01/court-rules-again-that-vernor-can-sell-autodesk-software/

"The court explains again why the Ninth Circuit precedent that it is
bound to follow, United States v. Wise, requires the result that Vernor
is the owner of the copies of the software. “Wise requires the court to
look at a transaction holistically, and the court finds no basis for the
conclusion that an agreement to permit perpetual possession of property
can be construed as reserving ownership.” This is the key factor in copy
ownership cases: perpetual possession. When a transaction results in an
individual being entitled to perpetual possession of the copy, as was
the case for Vernor, then courts should find that such individuals are
owners of their copies, entitled to a “first sale” right ..."

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)