On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:41:04 +0200 lee <l...@yun.yagibdah.de> wrote: > Celejar <cele...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 15:24:22 +0200 > > lee <l...@yun.yagibdah.de> wrote: > > > >> Celejar <cele...@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >> > You do not cite any sources for your various assertions, and I believe > >> > you are incorrect as a matter of US law. > >> > >> American law doesn't apply here. Letting that aside: What is a copy? > >> When you duplicate software, you get an identical duplicate which is > >> indistinguishable from other duplicates of the same software. > > > > Are you raising some sort of philosophical objection to the law, or > > actually explaining what you think the law is? > > I'm merely asking a question and suggest that there isn't really such a > thing as a copy or an original in the classical sense in many cases. > You are talking about some law that involves "copies" without explaining > what a "copy" is.
In this context, any problem with the definition of "copy" is irrelevant; you cannot legally (under US law) transfer *any* version of the software, "original" or "copy", to anyone else without the copyright holder's permission, as you have not purchased the software but merely licensed it. Celejar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120925092032.55d9cc38.cele...@gmail.com
