Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
> On 4/9/2010 12:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.html
>
> The First Sale doctrine has nothing to do with copyright
> infringement of GPL-covered works, except in its usual
> sense. In particular, a copy of a GPL-covered work made
> for use does not become a copy which may be transferred
> under 17 USC 109 without the GPL being honored, any more
Samsung and several other defendants disagree with you stupid Hyman.
"As a separate and distinct Twelfth Affirmative Defense and each claim
for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs claim for
copyright infringement is barred under at least the provisions of 17
U.S.C. § 109(a), as Defendant was licensed and any copies alleged to be
infringing were, therefore, lawfully made."
regards,
alexander.
P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."
Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'
P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."
Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'
--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
