Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/9/2010 12:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
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.

Be careful here Alexander.

Hyman has Pee Jay and Eben Moglen on his side. That pair of legal
experts are renowned scholars who meticulously cite and interpret
federal court decisions concerning U.S. copyright law. After carefully
evaluating case decisions spanning the past eighty three years, Eben
and Pee Jay have concluded that licenses are not contracts.

Hyman is going to publish the Table of Cases Index amassed by Eben and
Pee Jay along with all the settlement agreements signed by the SFLC in
GPL cases.

What'll we do then? I suppose we'll just have to wait until Hyman
releases his documentation to decide.

RJack :)
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to