Re: Distributing GPL software.
On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> wrote:
[...]
> [And for reference, the doctrine of first sale is typically held to
> apply only when (amongst other things) (a) the work is sold,
The doctrine is codified in 17 USC 109. It is commonly called
"first sale", but the actual parameters of the rule are specified in
the statute and not some lay reading of "first", "sale", or even
"first sale".
> and (b) the work is not licensed in a manner that restricts
> transfer of ownership
Oh, that's close (hint: googly-googly covenant). But according
to the FSF, the GPL is not a contract. To quote the FSF's own
director and counsel Moglen elaborating on GPL's pretty clear
wording on acceptance/assent:
<quote>
The GPL, however, is a true copyright license: a unilateral
permission, in which no obligations are reciprocally required by
the licensor.
</quote>
and
<quote>
the work's user is obliged to remain within the bounds of the
license not because she voluntarily promised, but because she
doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license permits
</quote>
But it doesn't matter. As long as the GPL doesn't impose viral
chain of assent akin to the OSL, I'm safe anyway -- read again
what I wrote in this thread including linked legalese.
regards,
alexander.
Reply to: