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

Re: software licensing

Daniel Martin at cush <dtm12@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> 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 john@dhh.gt.org 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.]


Reply to: