Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> >> On 4/9/2010 12:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> > http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.html >> >> The First Sale doctrine has nothing to do with copyright >> infringement of GPL-covered works, except in its usual >> sense. In particular, a copy of a GPL-covered work made >> for use does not become a copy which may be transferred >> under 17 USC 109 without the GPL being honored, any more > > Samsung and several other defendants disagree with you stupid Hyman.
Defendants try making an exhaustive list of conceivable theories (even conflicting ones) for why a complaint should be held invalid. They need just a single hit to be relieved from compliance. So what does it tell us when they choose to comply after all (as they have consistently ended up with so far)? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
