Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?
Just to stress...
On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov <alexander.terekhov@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/26/06, Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov <alexander.terekhov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 1/26/06, Yorick Cool <yorick.cool@fundp.ac.be> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > And licensing software is not selling it.
> > >
> > > Yorick, Yorick. The courts disagree.
> >
> > And then quotes as proof a huge chunk of text which includes
> > the explanation:
> >
> > > A number of courts have held that the sale of software is the sale of
> > > a good within the meaning of Uniform Commercial Code. Advent Sys. Ltd.
> > > v. Unisys Corp., 925 F.2d 670, 676 (3d Cir. 1991); Step-Saver, 929
> > > F.2d at 99-100; Downriver Internists v. Harris Corp., 929 F.2d 1147,
> > > 1150 (6th Cir. 1991). It is well-settled that in determining whether a
> > > transaction is a sale, a lease, or a license, courts look to the
> > > economic realities of the exchange.
> >
> > In other words: when money changes hand in the sale of software,
> > it's fair to say that the person getting the software has been sold
> > a licensed copy of that software (at least, when the sale is legal).
> >
> > This shouldn't be very surprising. Many books get published under
> > an "all rights reserved" license, but the people who buy those
> > books are still allowed to turn around and transfer the copy to
> > someone else.
> >
> > A person could even say that the "economic realities of the
> > exchange" are different when no money moves from the recipient
> > of the software to the copyright holder.
>
> Hey plonked Miller, gratis copies also fall under the "first sale"
> (for which the trigger is nothing but ownership of a particular copy
> or phonorecord lawfully made).
>
> But anyway, <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html>. Kuh-kuh.
Go read 17 USC in its entirety (hello "as a whole"-in-the-GPL hello)
including section 109. 106(3) is severely limited by the "exception"
to 106(3) in section 109. The reason why 106(3) is listed in 106 is to
provide legal basis to punish not only somebody who pirates works and
who may not even try or want to distribute pirated copies, but also
somebody who distributes pirated copies to the public that were
unlawfully made by another. Now, plonked Miller, you tell me how does
that apply to the GPL. Neither RMS nor Moglen can explain it. Perhaps
you can. I doubt it.
regards,
alexande
Reply to: