RJack <u...@example.net> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> writes: >> >>> 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. >> >> Defendants try making an exhaustive list of conceivable theories >> (even conflicting ones) for why a complaint should be held invalid. >> They need just a single hit to be relieved from compliance. So what >> does it tell us when they choose to comply after all (as they have >> consistently ended up with so far)? >> > > Just show us the settlement agreements DAK. Just the agreements please.
Why would they make the source code available without necessity? Out of court settlements are private. But the results speak for themselves. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
