Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?
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.
regards,
alexander.
Reply to: