Re: software licensing
Daniel Martin at cush <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Actually, no, the same argument can't be used in this way. This is
> part of the reason Microsoft puts the "use only on one computer"
> clause in their licenses. As email@example.com pointed out, distribution
> under copyright law implies an effective transfer of ownership, not
> merely copying.
But the distribution is under terms where anyone can copy it. Which means
that the purchaser never had an exclusive license to use it.
You can't legally enforce a right you don't have.
However, it is true that if you're not a distributor of the software,
and a person makes a copy of your stuff without your authorization you
still wouldn't be a distributor. An illegal copy grants no rights.
However, once again, I don't think this case is as important as what's
happening with KDE. [Where somehow KDE is acting like it's OK to link
anybody's GPLed code with Qt and redistribute it as a KDE product.]