[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed
From: |
Peter Köhlmann |
Subject: |
Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed |
Date: |
Sun, 11 Oct 2009 00:02:59 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KNode/4.3.2 |
amicus_curious wrote:
>
> "Robert Heller" <heller@deepsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:f7OdnYk7af6pdU3XnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@posted.localnet...
>> At Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:32:50 -0400 "amicus_curious" <acdc@sti.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Robert Heller" <heller@deepsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:o8udnc2yU_A6W03XnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@posted.localnet...
>>> >
>>> > If one has, for example, a shrink wrapped copy, never opened (and
>>> > thus
>>> > never installed), it is perfectly legal to re-sell that copy. I
>>> > believe that was citizen.org's case. Once you install it (eg open
>>> > the
>>> > box), then one 'has made a copy'. If you resell the
>>> > box/CD/whatever, someone ends up with a non-legal copy (assuming
>>> > that the software in question was not GPL or other open source,
>>> > which was the case with the eBay vender vs Autodesk case that
>>> > citizen.org defended).
>>> >
>>> That appears to be a wrong understanding of the facts presented in the
>>> case.
>>> The eBay vendor obtained these used copies of AutoCAD from sources
>>> that had
>>> moved to newer versions and had obtained the original materials. In
>>> the
>>
>> Which I guess implies that the original version was de-installed (the
>> copy on the hard drive was deleted in favor of the new version). No
>> unauthorized *copies* would exist.
>>
>>> case of the GPL, there is no need to root around getting old copies,
>>> you can
>>> just as easily obtain a new copy at zero cost. Now that new copy can
>>> be passed on as one pleases, with or without source, following the
>>> logic of the
>>> eBay/AutoCAD case.
>>
>> If it is passed on *as is*, there is no need to include the sources --
>> since the source is itself available from the same source as the new
>> copy. The GPL does not require you to re-distribute the sources if you
>> didn't modify them, you just need to be sure to include some kind of
>> 'pointer'
>> to those sources. You only have to make the source code *available*.
>>
> You are not very up on the GPL, I think.
As usual, your "thinking" isn't worth shit
Hint: Just read and *try* to understand the GPL. It is quite clear on the
topic
> That failure of making
> publication of the original, unmodified source was the only bone of
> contention in the half dozen cases that the SFLC are trouting as GPL
> victories in court.
And that is the next complete blunder you are doing
--
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, (continued)
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Rjack, 2009/10/14
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, David Kastrup, 2009/10/14
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Rjack, 2009/10/14
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, David Kastrup, 2009/10/14
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/10/14
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Rjack, 2009/10/14
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Rui Maciel, 2009/10/11
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, amicus_curious, 2009/10/10
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Robert Heller, 2009/10/10
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, amicus_curious, 2009/10/10
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed,
Peter Köhlmann <=
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Rui Maciel, 2009/10/11
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Rui Maciel, 2009/10/11
Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Hyman Rosen, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Hyman Rosen, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Hyman Rosen, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/10/13
- Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed, Tim Smith, 2009/10/13