David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: > > [...] > >> royalties, or a license fee). If you come to such an agreement, you can > >> distribute the combined work under another license (or no license at > >> all, in which case standard copyright provisions would apply). > > > > Eeckels, Eeckels. No license is needed to "distribute combined work" > > under 17 USC 117 and 17 USC 109. I mean addition exact copies (e.g. > > copies of "library" programs inside "executables" or whatever > > containers and aggregations like jars or whatnot) made under 17 USC > > 117 and distributed along with "originals" (e.g. downloaded, implied > > license to save bandwidth aside for a moment) under 17 USC 109. > > > > Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of > > this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along > > with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part > > of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. > > > > And contu6 elaborates: "[t]he sale of a copy of a program by a > > rightful possessor to another must be of all rights in the program, > > thus creating a new rightful possessor and destroying that status as > > regards the seller. This is in accord with the intent of that portion > > of the law which provides that owners of authorized copies of a > > copyrighted work may sell those copies without leave of the copyright > > proprietor.50 ... 50 17 U.S.C. ยง 109". > > That does not give you the right to create _new_ copies.
Read 17 USC 117, idiot. regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss