|
From: | Hyman Rosen |
Subject: | Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple |
Date: | Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:58:47 -0000 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 |
On 8/10/2010 3:57 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Since the GPL does not specify that title to the copies made is to be retained by the copyright proprietor, title to the copies belongs to the licensees who, under the 17 USC 109, is free to distribute the copies without the authority of the copyright owner.
That's false. Wells, the case you cite, says <http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18372604617204877041> The Supreme Court held that the statutory protection of copyright extends only to the original sale by the copyright proprietor and protects his exclusive right in and to such sale, but that the copyright law cannot be used to enforce contracts restricting the purchaser in his transfer of the copyrighted work and that the copyright proprietor's only remedy was for breach of contract. Even if this 1959 case is still good law, it does not mean that the licensees are free to copy and distribute GPL-covered works without honoring the license. It just means that the rights holders would need to sue based on violation of the license terms rather than on copyright infringement.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |