Re: The worst that can happen to GPLed code

[Lee Hollaar]

In article <x5k6y5otfo.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>hollaar@faith.cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) writes:
>
>> In article <x5wu25ouhr.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> 
>> writes:
>> >First sale applies if there is a sale.  It doesn't if there isn't.
>> >Copyright defines the minimum set of rights that can be _sold_ to you.
>> >It does not apply to items to which you have no right in the first
>> >place, but to which you are unilaterally granted a conditional license
>> >to use and redistribute, without any exchange of consideration from
>> >your side.
>> 
>> Wrong, wrong, wrong, at least under United States copyright law.
>> 
>> "First sale" is just a shorthand for the judicially-created doctrine
>> that is now codified in 17 USC 109.  It does not require a "sale"
>> but applies to anyone who is "the owner of a particular copy or
>> phonorecord lawfully made under this title".
>
>What about "made under this title" don't you understand?

I seem to understand it a bit more than you do, it appears.

The phrase essentially means that the copy is not infringing, either
because it was made with the permission of the copyright owner or
it falls within one of the exceptions to the copyright owner's
reproduction rights.


>> I can become the lawful owner of a copy by gift or similar things
>> that are not a sale.
>
>Which then is not obtained "under this title".

More nonsense.  If the owner of the copyright gives me a copy, then
I am the owner of a copy "made" (not "obtained") "under this title."