Tim Jackson wrote: [...] > There's only one way that someone can get such a right to further > copies: from the copyleft licence, with all its conditions. Thus the > copyleft licence is not rendered impotent.
At most it would be a license contract breach, not tort (copyright infringement) because the licensee who made 'further' copies made it within the scope of licensed *reproduction* right (no 'conditions' at all having nothing to do with copyleft 'conditions' for distribution of copies made) and owns the copies made... hence doctrine of exhaustion regarding distribution right shields licensee against copyright infringement claims. What is so hard to understand here? _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
