Please don't confuse me with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Pregerson
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/171/1075/2488277/ "Other courts have reached the same conclusion: software is sold and not licensed. " :) Am Do., 18. Juli 2019 um 15:51 Uhr schrieb Pamela Chestek < pam...@chesteklegal.com>: > No matter how long you beat your drum, or under how many email aliases and > pseudonyms, no one is buying your arguments here or on any other list. > > Pam > > Pamela S. Chestek > Chestek Legal > PO Box 2492 > Raleigh, NC 27602 > 919-800-8033 > pam...@chesteklegal.com > www.chesteklegal.com > > On 7/17/2019 11:32 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > 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 > 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
