Re: PJ lies about Terekhov--again

[Alan Mackenzie]

In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <user@example.net> wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> My dear Mr. Rjack,

>> please note:

>> In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <user@example.net> wrote:
>>> Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>> The following paragraph, originally cited by you, is talking about
>>  copying source code.  Note: SOURCE CODE.

>>>>> "1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the  Program's
>>>>> source code as you receive it, in any medium,  provided that you
>>>>> conspicuously and appropriately publish on  each copy an
>>>>> appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of  warranty; keep
>>>>> intact all the notices that refer to this  License and to the
>>>>> absence of any warranty; and give any  other recipients of the
>>>>> Program a copy of this License along  with the Program."

>>>> Er, what's that got to do with anything?  Who's talking about
>>>> source code?  The topic was Groklaw's reporting of Psystar's  court
>>>> loss, concerning its distribution of Apple's OS in  violation of
>>>> copyright.

>>> Before asking such nonsense questions, try reading the title of  this
>>> thread and one of the quotes objected to.

>> The title of this thread has, at best, a tenuous connection with  that
>> paragraph you cited.  Would you please read that paragraph  again.

>> Now, the following paragraph, again cited by you, has nothing to do
>> with source code.  It is talking about "owning a copy" of an Apple
>> operating system, that copy being essentially 100% machine executable
>> code.  There is no source code concerned here.

>>> "Even if Psystar were the lawful owner of the copy, it still  can't
>>> do what it did. The court quotes from Microsoft Corp. v.  Software
>>> Wholesale Club, Inc.: "the first-sale doctrine does not  apply to an
>>> admittedly counterfeit unit". So, no, you can't buy a
>>>  copy and use it to go into a counterfeiting business, in effect.
>>>  Terekhov's theory has bitten the dust and then had to eat some.
>>> Just like Daniel Wallace's anti-GPL theory did. Whoever is  relying
>>> on their legal theories might want to buy a vowel and try
>>>  to figure this puzzle out."
>>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091114101637997

>>> If you still have to ask such silly questions then you don't 
>>> belong here. Try Groklaw instead.

>> Please do try to pay attention to what you cite.

> If you can't grasp that Pee Jay is trying to generalize and apply
> the holdings of the Psystar Summary Judgement to your precious GPL and
> "Free" software then you don't belong on this thread --

I do understand that fact, though it has precious little to do with the
paragraphs you've cited.  I think PJ is a bit off to one side on this
point.

The real problem is that USA law has got its knickers in a twist over
this "first sale" business, in that it doesn't acknowledge what is really
being sold.  If I sell my copy of autocad to someone, what I'm selling is
essentially the _license_ to use that copy, not the piece of plastic that
constitutes the distribution CD.  If your legal system would recognise
this simple fact, all the nonsense we've heard about "being the lawful
owner of a copy", and it supposedly making a difference whether software
is loaded from a duplicating station or direct from an individual DVD
simply wouldn't happen.

> Sincerely,
> Rjack

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).