See, e.g., SoftMan Prods. Co. v. Adobe Sys. Inc., 171 F. Supp. 2d 1075, 1083 (C.D. Cal. 2001).
https://www.linuxjournal.com/files/linuxjournal.com/linuxjournal/articles/056/5628/softman-v-adobe.html I've collected most relevant stuff here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gnu.misc.discuss/jd7DiFRiH98/MaCxHL-lfpkJ Such as: "...the following factors require a finding that distributing software under licenses transfers individual copy ownership: temporally unlimited possession, absence of time limits on copy possession, pricing and payment schemes that are unitary not serial, licenses under which subsequent transfer is neither prohibited nor conditioned on obtaining the licensor’s prior approval (only subject to a prohibition against rental and a requirement that any transfer be of the entity), and licenses under which the use restrictions principal purpose is to protect intangible copyrightable subject matter, and not to preserve property interests in individual program copies. Id. at 172. " Unless you deliberately confuse ownership of copyright with ownership of copies it must be clear to you that all copies of copylefted works falls under 17 USC 109 and 17 USC 117. Am Mi., 17. Juli 2019 um 15:50 Uhr schrieb Pamela Chestek < pam...@chesteklegal.com>: > Your citations to cases that aren't analogous aren't convincing. > > Pam > > > Pamela S. Chestek > Chestek Legal > PO Box 2492 > Raleigh, NC 27602 > +1 919-800-8033 > pam...@chesteklegal.com > www.chesteklegal.com > > > On 7/16/19 3:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Story end: > > https://www.itassetmanagement.net/2016/10/31/secondary-software-2016/ > > https://www.usedsoft.com/en/lawyer-christian-ballke-on-the-legal-basis-for-the-trade-in-used-software/ > > Funny: > > http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20110929014241932 > ("Psystar Loses its Appeal; Licensees Have No First-Sale Rights; Costs > Awarded to Apple ~ pj") > > "But there is one more important result here. Do you remember all the > predictions on message boards all over the web by anti-GPL activists like > Alexander Terekhov that someone could get a copy of Linux, under the GPL, > and then make copies and sell them under another license, under the first > sale doctrine? That fantasy has just died a permanent death. It was never > true that one can do that. But now we can prove it with this Psystar > ruling. Yes, Psystar can ask the US Supreme Court to review this. But > seriously, what are the odds?" > > Am So., 14. Juli 2019 um 19:55 Uhr schrieb Alexander Terekhov < > herr.al...@gmail.com>: > >> 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 > listLicense-discuss@lists.opensource.orghttp://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 >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
