Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed

[Hyman Rosen]

amicus_curious wrote:
> "Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote
> > Rjack wrote:
> > > How does an "over-the-air broadcast television program" relate
> > > to an "over-the-internet computer program" licensed under a FOSS 
> > > license?
> >
> > Both of them are legally copied in a way which restricts
> > further distribution of the copies.
>
> You seem to constantly miss the point of the decision by the District 
> Court. AutoCAD, too, tried to restrict the distribution of the copy.  
> The copy was purchased legally, presumably, since it had all the 
> documentation with it just as a copy of a GPL work might be obtained 
> legally simply by downloading from some source.  The GPL makes no 
> limitation to how the program may be used.

You miss the essential difference - when you download a copy of
a GPLed program, it is you who is making the copy, and therefore
you are bound by the license (if you choose to be; if not, then
you do not have a "lawfully-made copy"). When you purchase a box
of software, you are not making a copy, and so you are not bound
by any license when it comes to disposing of it.

The GPL allows you without restriction to make a copy which you
do not convey. Making copies to convey has restrictions, however.