BTW, after Vernor v. Autodesk there was UMG vs. Augusto: http://www.phphosts.org/blog/2011/01/court-rules-that-its-legal-to-sell-promotional-cds/
See also: https://www.pcworld.com/article/258720/eu_court_rules_resale_of_used_software_licenses_is_legal_even_online.html Am So., 14. Juli 2019 um 16:01 Uhr schrieb Pamela Chestek < pam...@chesteklegal.com>: > On 7/13/2019 6:58 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > The thing is that 17 USC 117 makes the act of running/using software > unrestricted and 17 USC 109 also severely impedes ability to control > distribution as far as copyright is concerned. So, you'll have to stick to > contractual covenants and fight against > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_breach ... good luck with that :) > > > In both cases, only if you are the owner of a copy. "Licensees are not > entitled to the essential step defense." *Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.*, 621 > F.3d 1102, 1111 (9th Cir. 2010). It is a rare decision that holds that a > party is an owner of a copy of software rather than a licensee. > > Pam > > Pamela S. Chestek > Chestek Legal > PO Box 2492 > Raleigh, NC 27602 > 919-800-8033 > pam...@chesteklegal.com > www.chesteklegal.com > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
