On 1/26/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1/26/06, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
