Re: First sale according to COPYRIGHT LAW
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [...] Wrong. First sale is about distribution of authorized copies by their owners. The GPL entitles your friend to make copies and he owns them. So it does fall under first sale and only a contractual covenant can interfere with your friend's right to distribute all his copies as he sees fit under first sale and not the GPL. It is you who are wrong (but I know you will disagree, there's no point for you to reply). Your friend can only sell B not copies of B (B1, B2, etc...). That's forbidden under copyright. Hey [EMAIL PROTECTED], Lee Hollaar the author of http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html (I mean his treatise, not the Foreword written by the Chief Judge and the Chief Intellectual Property Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee) told your comrade GNUtian dak several times in the past that GNUtian understanding of first sale is totally wrong. Here's what Lee Hollar who worked with the Chief Judge and the Chief Intellectual Property Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Internet, copyright, and patent issues as a Committee Fellow once told your comrade GNUtian dak: -- In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar) writes: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: First sale applies if there is a sale. It doesn't if there isn't. Copyright defines the minimum set of rights that can be _sold_ to you. It does not apply to items to which you have no right in the first place, but to which you are unilaterally granted a conditional license to use and redistribute, without any exchange of consideration from your side. Wrong, wrong, wrong, at least under United States copyright law. First sale is just a shorthand for the judicially-created doctrine that is now codified in 17 USC 109. It does not require a sale but applies to anyone who is the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title. What about made under this title don't you understand? I seem to understand it a bit more than you do, it appears. The phrase essentially means that the copy is not infringing, either because it was made with the permission of the copyright owner or it falls within one of the exceptions to the copyright owner's reproduction rights. I can become the lawful owner of a copy by gift or similar things that are not a sale. Which then is not obtained under this title. More nonsense. If the owner of the copyright gives me a copy, then I am the owner of a copy made (not obtained) under this title. -- [...] 4. Rui sold or gifted copies of B to Terekhov (B1, B2, etc...). Rui was compliant with the GPL and provided access to source code to Terekhov. Terekhov is not a party under the GPL agreement regarding those copies to begin with, and he may resell those copies under first sale ignoring the GPL altogether. That's where you're wrong. You can't give copies of B under first sale, just B (your copy). Hey retard, read again what I wrote above. All those (B1, B2, etc...) copies which *you gave me* ARE MINE. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: First sale according to COPYRIGHT LAW
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [...] Of course that calling someone a retard only shows your level :) I'm calling you a retard because it's a fact: you are either being intentionally obtuse or it is your natural and normal condition. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00174.html regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: First sale according to COPYRIGHT LAW
On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 10:50 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [...] Of course that calling someone a retard only shows your level :) I'm calling you a retard because it's a fact: you are either being intentionally obtuse or it is your natural and normal condition. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00174.html So you pollute debian-legal too... Rui signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: First sale according to COPYRIGHT LAW
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [...] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00174.html So you pollute debian-legal too... Sort of. Oh, and I'd like to share my latest posting. To: Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Distriution of GPL incompatible libraries Cc: Glenn L. McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-legal@lists.debian.org In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 2/12/06, Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] However, what if the customer then wanted to sell the machine, or if the company wanted to sell machines with this incompatible binary and library preinstalled. Would this violation the GPL, or is it possible that the companies modifcations are hiding behind the BSD license library ? This would violate the GPL. The violation occurs once you want to distribute a GPLed binary linked to a GPL-incompatible library. Only in the GNU Republic where software belongs to state (and hence it is regulated by state permits akin to lottery or gun dealership which are neither contracts nor property rights), and both 17 USC 109 and 17 USC 117 are simply nonexistent. Then comes the doctrine of copyright misuse... GPL violation of which has raised to the level of antitrust violation according to Wallace... and according to Prof. Nadan it doesn't even have to raise to the level of antitrust violation because linking claims alone are sufficient to put the entire GPL'd code base into quasi public domain (the penalty for copyright misuse). So pick your choice, GNUtians. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: First sale according to COPYRIGHT LAW
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [...] Let's analyse some situations: 1. You gave B to a friend that's first sale Right. 1.1 your friend sold B to someone else that's first sale Right. 1.2 your friend sold copies of B to other people (B1, B2, etc...) that's no longer first sale, that's distribution of new copies Wrong. First sale is about distribution of authorized copies by their owners. The GPL entitles your friend to make copies and he owns them. So it does fall under first sale and only a contractual covenant can interfere with your friend's right to distribute all his copies as he sees fit under first sale and not the GPL. and that can only be done under the terms of the GNU GPL, the only license that permits those copies. Otherwise, copyright says your friend can't do that. 2. You sell B to someone else that's just like 1.1 Right. 2.1 that someone else gives copies of B to other people (B1, B2, etc...) that's just like 1.2 Except that 1.2 is wrong. 3. you give copies of B to other people (B1, B2, etc...) that's just like 1.2 Except that 1.2 is wrong. Rui 4. Rui sold or gifted copies of B to Terekhov (B1, B2, etc...). Rui was compliant with the GPL and provided access to source code to Terekhov. Terekhov is not a party under the GPL agreement regarding those copies to begin with, and he may resell those copies under first sale ignoring the GPL altogether. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
