Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Geza Giedke wrote: > > Later he claims that "once an author has sold a copy of a work, he or > > she loses the exclusive distribution right with respect to that work." > > Of course he can sell the specific copy of software he purchased, > > e.g. the SuSE CD. But this is besides the point since nothing gives > > the purchaser the right to *copy and distribute copies of* the > > software he purchased. Ever wondered why there are no "MS Office for > > 99cent" offers in German software stores? > Now *that* is beside the point, Geza. Microsoft doesn't grant the right > to reproduce (beyond statutory http://dejure.org/gesetze/UrhG/69d.html).
right, MS doesn't. But the GPL also grants the right only if and as long the recipient of the GPL-licend software adheres to the principles of the GPL. So as far as distribution is concerned, a GPL-violator is in no better position than a purchaser of MS software. > > > > Point g) reiterates the error made in b): "According to the Bavarian > > judges, if the GPL is legally ineffective, the user does not have a > > license and is thus violating copyright law." A *user* can never be in > > violation of the GPL: a *distributor* can be! > So what did *Skype* do that doesn't fall under "first sale", Geza? first, I'm not sure that there is a "first sale" rule in Germany; second, since the "Nutzungsrechte" that are passed on when selling a program are very limited in general (see http://ig.cs.tu-berlin.de/oldstatic/Think-Ahead.ORG/pdfs/IV-3-KoglinMetzger.pdf) so I wouldn't be surprised if sale/distribution in breach of the licence terms would not be among them; especially, since in doubt the even more restrictive terms of Urheberrecht alone apply. But even if Skype were in their rights, the fact remains that they accepted the ruling. It may well be that an additional strength of the GPL (beyond its legal soundness, which you question) is that it is (and is generally perceived as) *fair* and that it is in the best interest of F/OSS users and distributors to be accomodating to the wishes of the authors of GPL'ed software: after all, they profit from their work (and the work of the community that is made possible by the GPL) and hope to continue profiting from future releases. But in any case, in football we say "Die Wahrheit ist auf'm Platz" and in this case "truth is in the courtroom" - and the GPL has been successful where it counted: in negotiations with alleged violators and in the courtroom. regards Geza PS: I'm not too much interested in the details of Urheberrecht and copyright. I'm neither a lawyer nor a programmer, just a happy user of Free Software. The meaning of the GPL seems to me very straight forward, except maybe for those who would like to find a way to circumvent it. The lawyers of all infringers seem to agree (given that they all settled) and the (German) courts, too. That's good enough for me for the time being. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
