Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed

[Alexander Terekhov]

Tim Smith wrote:
[...]
> Groklaw seems to agree with you. PJ says the Autodesk ruling is "poison
> for FOSS" and hopes it is overturned.
> 
> <http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091010152322226>

Yeah, yeah.

Well, at least her own pseudo-paralegal conclusions are quite a
contribution on the recreational front! ;-)

"Authored by: PJ on Monday, October 12 2009 @ 07:56 PM EDT 

Once the license is first saled away, then
what stops you from putting a new license on
it? Say, a Microsoft license? From that
point onward, you can get rid of the second
license by first sale, etc., rinse and
repeat.

See why I think the Autodesk decision is 
wrongly decided?"

"Authored by: PJ on Monday, October 12 2009 @ 07:58 PM EDT 

He said it was a sale, not a license, because
there was no requirement to give back the old
CDs when you were done.

So the license goes poof. "

"Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, October 13 2009 @ 12:40 AM EDT 

You are missing the legal dance being proposed.
If first sale trumps the license, there is no
GPL any more, and so the GPL doesn't say
anything or require anything. It's over. "

Ha ha.

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)