Re: First Sale upheld in software case

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Rjack wrote:
> > "In light of their facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely
> >  unremarkable principle that “uses” that violate a license 
> > agreement constitute copyright infringement only when those uses 
> > would infringe in the absence of any license agreement at all."
>
> Fortunately, since copying and distributing computer programs 
> infringes upon the author's copyrights in the absence of any 
> license agreement at all, the JMRI decision continues to be 
> perfectly sound.

Nobody said copying and distributing without permission (which the
Artistic License *does* freely permit) wasn't infringement.
The attribution requirement wasn't a "condition" to the license -- it
was a contractual covenant. There is no right of attribution listed in
17 USC 106.

Sincerely,
Rjack

-- "In light of their facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely
unremarkable principle that “uses” that violate a license agreement
constitute copyright infringement only when those uses would infringe
in the absence of any license agreement at all."; Storage Technology
Corp. v. Custom Hardware Engineering Inc., 421 F.3d 1307 (CAFC) --