Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alfred, can you please try and maintain proper attributions and
follow quoting conventions?
I'm already doing that.
It depends on the license. The GPL gives an explicity right for
this, some other licenses may not. If I'm in
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:00:56 -0600, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isaac writes:
17 USC 117 is a limitation on the copyright holders rights that allows an
owner of a copy of software to make copies necessary to install and run
software without having any permission from the copyright
Isaac wrote:
[...]
I believe that I could were a court to recognize that I owned the copy
of software rather than having license it. Courts in the US don't
seem to recognize such a thing.
Other courts have reached the same conclusion: software is sold
and not licensed.
David Kastrup wrote:
[... license not a contract ...]
Only if it's a license to do something regulated by government. Like
a permit to run a public lottery or become a gun dealer. Such permits
from state are neither contracts nor property rights. Moglen and RMS
managed to bullshit you into
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 16:10:17 +0100, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Isaac wrote:
[...]
I believe that I could were a court to recognize that I owned the copy
of software rather than having license it. Courts in the US don't
seem to recognize such a thing.
Other courts have
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[... license not a contract ...]
Only if it's a license to do something regulated by
government. Like a permit to run a public lottery or become a gun
dealer. Such permits from state are neither contracts nor property
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
As you can see, you are wrong. Again. Too bad. The meaning of
license you refer to above does not exhaust the legal meanings of
that term. Those are meanings 12, but meaning 34 are also valid
uses.
Legal dictionaries are not legal authorities to begin with. And
Isaac wrote:
[...]
While it's true that some courts have decided that, the majority position
seems to be otherwise. I'm not sure which court decision that line is
from, but I suspect we can find decisions from other district courts
in CA contrary to this one.
Regarding 17 USC 117, take also
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You got it wrong. By giving you his property (the lawful copy of the
software) for the purposes of your job, you have not lawfully acquired
(become owner) of a copy, and hence you have no rights. The fact that
you have access to the copy (you hold
Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why do you have to be the 'owner' of the copy? Consider, for a
moment, a different scenario. You borrow from a library a book
containing a work which has passed into the public domain. Although
you have not become the 'owner' of the work, you are
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As for installing on multiple computers, I think that it's totally
OK. For example, I can install it on a computer at my home and on
another computer at my dacha. The key is
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Nope. It gives you additional rights depending on conditions. You
can accept the conditions and make use of the rights, or you can leave
it be. No contract. There is no obligation to accept the conditions.
Because the employeer gave me explicit access to the CD. See the
above sentence.
No, he instructed you, as his agent, to do things with the CD. You
are not accessing that CD as AMS, but as the agent of your
principal. You, as AMS, do not derive any rights from this action.
...
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Nope. It gives you additional rights depending on conditions. You
can accept the conditions and make use of the rights, or you can leave
it be. No contract. There is no obligation to accept the conditions.
^^^
Your ignorance works against you,
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You got it wrong. By giving you his property (the lawful copy of the
software) for the purposes of your job, you have not lawfully acquired
(become owner) of a copy, and hence you have no rights. The fact that
you have access to the
Well, this is where you got it wrong - it's called IP (Intellectual
Property) because it is a form of property. Whenever you produce a
work of authorship (and software is considered a work of authorship
like a novel or a poem) you, the author, are the owner of that
work.
In the
Because the employeer gave me explicit access to the CD. See the
above sentence.
If I am giving cleaning personnel access to my rooms, that does not
mean that they are free to read my letters and listen to my music
collection.
Access is not ownership. You don't get when
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
What breach? Distribution of authorized copies fall under first
sale.
Sure, but there has been no unconditional authorization. So we are
talking about distribution of unauthorized copies.
The act of distribution doesn't turn authorized copies into
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The content does not magically jump off the copy. Accessing the
content of the copy is the sole right of the copy's owner.
And since I can leaglly access the content, the GPL jumps into play.
Your access is limited to what the owner of the
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
What breach? Distribution of authorized copies fall under first
sale.
Sure, but there has been no unconditional authorization. So we are
talking about distribution of unauthorized copies.
The act of distribution
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 23:03:02 +0100, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
What breach? Distribution of authorized copies fall under first
sale.
Sure, but there has been no unconditional authorization. So we are
Isaac wrote:
[...]
It's not a mistake. Preaching the gospel of first sale according to Alexander
appears to be a life mission.
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/e123816845315e68
quote authors=Jeffrey Siegal, Isaac
What about the first sale doctrine? Indeed, if users own
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Conditional authorization does not magically turn into
unconditional authorization.
A promise on my part to forbear from distribution right under first
sale and instead do what you decree is a covenant, not a
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What about licensee don't you understand?
The part which (you claim) states that only the owner of the physical
media on which the copy is 'fixed' can become a licensee. I can see
nothing in the GPL which states that. On contrary the preamble states
that
Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What about licensee don't you understand?
The part which (you claim) states that only the owner of the physical
media on which the copy is 'fixed' can become a licensee.
Well, that is common law. You are only
25 matches
Mail list logo
