gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed


From: amicus_curious
Subject: Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:01:06 -0400


"Hyman Rosen" <address@hidden> wrote in message news:address@hidden
Rjack wrote:
How does an "over-the-air broadcast television program" relate
to an "over-the-internet computer program" licensed under a FOSS license?

Both of them are legally copied in a way which restricts
further distribution of the copies.

You seem to constantly miss the point of the decision by the District Court. AutoCAD, too, tried to restrict the distribution of the copy. The copy was purchased legally, presumably, since it had all the documentation with it just as a copy of a GPL work might be obtained legally simply by downloading from some source. The GPL makes no limitation to how the program may be used. The GPL does try to restrict how the possessor of the copy passes it to another in that it requires a copy of the source to accompany the transfer or at least a way for the receiver to obtain a copy of the source. That is more liberal than prohibition as tried by AutoCAD, but it is a limiting condition nonetheless. The decision in court was that those prohibitions do not apply due to doctrine of first sale. They don't apply to the AutoCAD license and they don't apply to the GPL license. They don't apply to Microsoft's licenses either. Until, of course the 9th Circuit sees fit to say no to the idea.

Are over the air copies of a work restricted in some way from being given to another?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]