Advertisement
Embedded Android Training, Hands-On
AOSP, Kernel Androidisms, System Server, Internals / 5-days / O'Reilly Author Instructor
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
BusyBox developers go after VerizonBusyBox developers go after VerizonPosted Dec 7, 2007 19:26 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270)In reply to: BusyBox developers go after Verizon by pauliusz Parent article: BusyBox developers go after Verizon
Doesn't matter if the devices are used, as long as they're being resold. Your pirate CDs aren't covered by first sale because they aren't legal to begin with - it only applies if you bought a copy from someone licensed to distribute.
(Log in to post comments)
BusyBox developers go after Verizon Posted Dec 9, 2007 23:21 UTC (Sun) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link] I think you've answered your own question. If the sale of the routers to Verizon was illegal (because ActionTec had no license for the software), why would Verizon be covered by first sale doctrine when they resell them?
BusyBox developers go after Verizon Posted Dec 10, 2007 14:48 UTC (Mon) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] First sale assumes a legal copy, so, no, it probably wouldn't apply if Actiontec had distributed illegally [*] Under the terms of the license, in such a situation Verizon would be under the normal license terms (that is, they would have all normal GPLv2 rights and responsibilities). However, at the time I wrote the note I assumed Actiontec's distribution was legal, because I had no reason to think otherwise (the complaint was only against Verizon). I have since read something that suggests the authors may also have had an issue with Actiontec, but that was not visible in the announcement, so I didn't know about it. Today, Actiontec has the source on their website; I have no idea whether they had provided an appropriate offer letter with the products or whether the source was on their website prior to the complaint. scott [*] maybe. IANAL. The GPL is different enough from normal licenses that it's hard to know how a court would apply it in such a case. A court might hold that the intent of section (4) was to treat recipients of illegal distribution as though the distribution had been legal, and that therefore first sale would apply. Or it might hold that the section (4) should be read directly, as imposing the GPL terms. Or it might hold something entirely different, rooted in commercial law rather than in the license.
|
|
||||||||||||