amicus_curious wrote: > > "Robert Heller" <hel...@deepsoft.com> wrote in message > news:f7odnyk7af6pdu3xnz2dnuvz_qidn...@posted.localnet... >> At Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:32:50 -0400 "amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> "Robert Heller" <hel...@deepsoft.com> wrote in message >>> news:o8udnc2yu_a6w03xnz2dnuvz_jydn...@posted.localnet... >>> > >>> > If one has, for example, a shrink wrapped copy, never opened (and >>> > thus >>> > never installed), it is perfectly legal to re-sell that copy. I >>> > believe that was citizen.org's case. Once you install it (eg open >>> > the >>> > box), then one 'has made a copy'. If you resell the >>> > box/CD/whatever, someone ends up with a non-legal copy (assuming >>> > that the software in question was not GPL or other open source, >>> > which was the case with the eBay vender vs Autodesk case that >>> > citizen.org defended). >>> > >>> That appears to be a wrong understanding of the facts presented in the >>> case. >>> The eBay vendor obtained these used copies of AutoCAD from sources >>> that had >>> moved to newer versions and had obtained the original materials. In >>> the >> >> Which I guess implies that the original version was de-installed (the >> copy on the hard drive was deleted in favor of the new version). No >> unauthorized *copies* would exist. >> >>> case of the GPL, there is no need to root around getting old copies, >>> you can >>> just as easily obtain a new copy at zero cost. Now that new copy can >>> be passed on as one pleases, with or without source, following the >>> logic of the >>> eBay/AutoCAD case. >> >> If it is passed on *as is*, there is no need to include the sources -- >> since the source is itself available from the same source as the new >> copy. The GPL does not require you to re-distribute the sources if you >> didn't modify them, you just need to be sure to include some kind of >> 'pointer' >> to those sources. You only have to make the source code *available*. >>
> You are not very up on the GPL, I think. As usual, your "thinking" isn't worth shit Hint: Just read and *try* to understand the GPL. It is quite clear on the topic > That failure of making > publication of the original, unmodified source was the only bone of > contention in the half dozen cases that the SFLC are trouting as GPL > victories in court. And that is the next complete blunder you are doing -- Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
