BusyBox developers go after Verizon [LWN.net]

BusyBox developers go after Verizon

Posted Dec 8, 2007 11:17 UTC (Sat) by farnz (guest, #17727)
In reply to: BusyBox developers go after Verizon by sepreece
Parent article: BusyBox developers go after Verizon

I'm no lawyer either, but my understanding of the first sale doctrine is that it lets you pass on your rights and obligations under copyright law as-is, not that it's an open get-out clause from copyright infringement if you don't modify something. The only clauses in a licence that it lets you escape are those that prevent redistribution entirely, and those that purport to put limits on you the seller that differ from those placed on the buyer.

In this case, there are two possibilities:

ActionTec distribute to Verizon in compliance with the GPL, by either supplying source code, or a written offer to supply. Verizon modify the package by removing the parts that lead to GPL compliance, and are thus not covered by first sale any more, as they're modifying things before they resell.
ActionTec distribute without complying with the GPL (no source code, no offer). Verizon are still not covered by first sale, as the distribution to Verizon was illegal.

(Log in to post comments)

BusyBox developers go after Verizon

Posted Dec 8, 2007 16:32 UTC (Sat) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link]

My understanding is that first sale of an object covered by copyright exhausts the author's
rights in that particular object. The purchaser is buying an object and all its contents and
is no longer bound by the original license.

The purchaser DOES NOT have any additional right to distribute the software contained in the
device (make additional copies), but has the right to resell the device and the copy of the
software that is in it. I don't think that would be affected by, for instance, loading
additional software into the device or removing some of the software in the device. However,
if the purchaser loaded other versions of GPL software into the device, then the distribution
of that software would have to be under the terms of its license.

The point is that the specific copy of the software that the purchaser got from the original
seller is the purchaser's property and can be resold with no obligations under the original
license (in the US).

My understanding from one of the other postings is that Verizon is also distributing updated
firmware and that they may also put a different version of the firmware into the device before
reselling the device. In that case, they would be the original distributor for that copy and
would be bound by whatever license applied.

Note that all of this is speculative - nobody in this discussion seems to know exactly what's
in the device or where they got it, so it's not clear what rules would apply...

BusyBox developers go after Verizon

Posted Dec 13, 2007 21:11 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

> My understanding is that first sale of an object covered by copyright exhausts the author's
rights in that particular object. The purchaser is buying an object and all its contents and
is no longer bound by the original license.

Copyright != ownership. Owner of content's copyright != manufacturer of object.