Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed

[Peter Köhlmann]

amicus_curious wrote:

> 
> "Robert Heller" <heller@deepsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:f7OdnYk7af6pdU3XnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@posted.localnet...
>> At Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:32:50 -0400 "amicus_curious" <acdc@sti.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Robert Heller" <heller@deepsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:o8udnc2yU_A6W03XnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@posted.localnet...
>>> >
>>> > If one has, for example, a shrink wrapped copy, never opened (and
>>> > thus
>>> > never installed), it is perfectly legal to re-sell that copy.  I
>>> > believe that was citizen.org's case.  Once you install it (eg open
>>> > the
>>> > box), then one 'has made a copy'.  If you resell the
>>> > box/CD/whatever, someone ends up with a non-legal copy (assuming
>>> > that the software in question was not GPL or other open source,
>>> > which was the case with the eBay vender vs Autodesk case that
>>> > citizen.org defended).
>>> >
>>> That appears to be a wrong understanding of the facts presented in the
>>> case.
>>> The eBay vendor obtained these used copies of AutoCAD from sources
>>> that had
>>> moved to newer versions and had obtained the original materials.  In
>>> the
>>
>> Which I guess implies that the original version was de-installed (the
>> copy on the hard drive was deleted in favor of the new version).  No
>> unauthorized *copies* would exist.
>>
>>> case of the GPL, there is no need to root around getting old copies,
>>> you can
>>> just as easily obtain a new copy at zero cost.  Now that new copy can
>>> be passed on as one pleases, with or without source, following the
>>> logic of the
>>> eBay/AutoCAD case.
>>
>> If it is passed on *as is*, there is no need to include the sources --
>> since the source is itself available from the same source as the new
>> copy. The GPL does not require you to re-distribute the sources if you
>> didn't modify them, you just need to be sure to include some kind of
>> 'pointer'
>> to those sources.  You only have to make the source code *available*.
>>

> You are not very up on the GPL, I think.  

As usual, your "thinking" isn't worth shit
Hint: Just read and *try* to understand the GPL. It is quite clear on the 
topic

> That failure of making
> publication of the original, unmodified source was the only bone of
> contention in the half dozen cases that the SFLC are trouting as GPL
> victories in court.

And that is the next complete blunder you are doing
-- 
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.