David Kastrup wrote:
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)?
Just show us the settlement agreements DAK. Just the agreements please.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
