> Read this and try to extrapolate it to software and static > linking [dynamic linking aside for a moment]: > > http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/125_F3d_580.htm
If I were defending, and my attorney tried to cite only that one as defense for a software license/copyright violation, I wouldn't feel too confident. > > See also <http://lwn.net/2001/1108>. > ("License agreements and first sale doctrine") > > Here's the ruling: > > http://tinyurl.com/3c2n2 (Does a denial of injunctive relief carry the same weight of precedence as the outcome of a trial?) If the ruling at that URL (Softman v Adobe) extends to all software licenses and EULA's, and the Lee v A.R.T. case applies to compiled works, then I have serious doubts that most provisions of most of the OSI-approved licenses mean anything at all for most users of software. It would mean that if one is simply going to compile, link, and/or use software (and not edit the source, or distribute copies) then licenses (open or closed-source) can be ignored if you obtained a lawful copy. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3