Re: LGPL reverse engineering clause & Java

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> Stefan Monnier wrote:
> [...]
>> The intent of the "first sale" doctrine of 17 USC 109 is pretty clearly not
>> to allow someone to sell/distribute endless copies of a single object;
>> even if those copies are obtained legally and are not tainted by the
>> "backup" clause.
>
> And what makes you think so? Well, see 
>
> http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/quotes/fn1-65.htm
>
> <quote>
>
> Section 109(a) restates and confirms the principle that, where the 
> copyright owner has transferred ownership of a particular copy or 
> phonorecord of a work, the person to whom the copy or phonorecord 
> is transferred is entitled to dispose of it by sale, rental, or any 
> other means.

So what about "transferred ownership" and "particular copy" don't you
understand?

> Thus, for example, the outright sale of an authorized copy of a 
> book frees it from any copyright control over its resale price 
> or other conditions of its future disposition.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So what about "outright sale" and "authorized copy" don't you
understand?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum