On 11/9/01 2:28 AM, "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> on Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 08:37:21PM -0800, Ken Arromdee ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: >> On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Karsten M. Self wrote: >>> Clause 1: >>> >>> "The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale" >>> >>> The terms for payment are interpreted by me to be "sale +time", >>> which in the general case reduces to a required fee for sale or >>> transfer. >> >> Even in the general case, where the time period can be 0, it's not a >> required fee for sale or transfer. You can sell or transfer it to >> anyone you want without a fee--the person you transfer it to just >> can't use it. > > First, I disagree with your reasoning. I feel the terms applied > constitute sale. > > Second, use of a lawfully owned copy of software is not an exclusive > right of the copyright holder, 17 USC 117(a). I know this isn't a democracy but I still vote with Ken. The OSD says that the author, Jane, can't demand a fee from Bill solely because Bill sells or gives a copy of the software to Sally. On it's face, its about "redistribution." It doesn't say anything about "fee for use" and it doesn't ban initial sale. -- Heaven is under our feet as well as over our heads. -Henry David Thoreau, naturalist and author (1817-1862) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
