On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
