<div dir="ltr">See, e.g., SoftMan Prods. Co. v. Adobe Sys. Inc., 171 F. Supp. 2d 1075, 1083
(C.D. Cal. 2001).<div><br><div><a href="https://www.linuxjournal.com/files/linuxjournal.com/linuxjournal/articles/056/5628/softman-v-adobe.html">https://www.linuxjournal.com/files/linuxjournal.com/linuxjournal/articles/056/5628/softman-v-adobe.html</a> <br></div></div><div><br></div><div>I've collected most relevant stuff here:</div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gnu.misc.discuss/jd7DiFRiH98/MaCxHL-lfpkJ">https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gnu.misc.discuss/jd7DiFRiH98/MaCxHL-lfpkJ</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>Such as:</div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:13px">"...the following factors require a finding that </span><br style="font-size:13px"><span style="font-size:13px">distributing software under licenses transfers individual copy </span><br style="font-size:13px"><span style="font-size:13px">ownership: temporally unlimited possession, absence of time </span><br style="font-size:13px"><span style="font-size:13px">limits on copy possession, pricing and payment schemes that are </span><br style="font-size:13px"><span style="font-size:13px">unitary not serial, licenses under which subsequent transfer is </span><br style="font-size:13px"><span style="font-size:13px">neither prohibited nor conditioned on obtaining the licensor’s </span><br style="font-size:13px"><span style="font-size:13px">prior approval (only subject to a prohibition against rental and </span><br style="font-size:13px"><span style="font-size:13px">a requirement that any transfer be of the entity), and licenses </span><br style="font-size:13px"><span style="font-size:13px">under which the use restrictions principal purpose is to protect</span><br style="font-size:13px"><span style="font-size:13px">intangible copyrightable subject matter, and not to preserve </span><br style="font-size:13px"><span style="font-size:13px">property interests in individual program copies. Id. at 172.</span> "</div><div><br></div><div>Unless you deliberately confuse ownership of copyright with ownership of copies it must be clear to you that all copies of copylefted works falls under 17 USC 109 and 17 USC 117. <br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Am Mi., 17. Juli 2019 um 15:50 Uhr schrieb Pamela Chestek <<a href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a>>:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Your citations to cases that aren't analogous aren't convincing.<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail-m_4414458293503084483moz-signature">Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
PO Box 2492<br>
Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
+1 919-800-8033<br>
<a class="gmail-m_4414458293503084483moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com" target="_blank">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a class="gmail-m_4414458293503084483moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com" target="_blank">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail-m_4414458293503084483moz-cite-prefix">On 7/16/19 3:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Story end:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.itassetmanagement.net/2016/10/31/secondary-software-2016/" target="_blank">https://www.itassetmanagement.net/2016/10/31/secondary-software-2016/</a><br>
<a href="https://www.usedsoft.com/en/lawyer-christian-ballke-on-the-legal-basis-for-the-trade-in-used-software/" target="_blank">https://www.usedsoft.com/en/lawyer-christian-ballke-on-the-legal-basis-for-the-trade-in-used-software/</a><br>
<br>
Funny:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20110929014241932" target="_blank">http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20110929014241932</a><br>
("Psystar Loses its Appeal; Licensees Have No First-Sale Rights;
Costs Awarded to Apple ~ pj")<br>
<br>
"But there is one more important result here. Do you remember
all the predictions on message boards all over the web by
anti-GPL activists like Alexander Terekhov that someone could
get a copy of Linux, under the GPL, and then make copies and
sell them under another license, under the first sale doctrine?
That fantasy has just died a permanent death. It was never true
that one can do that. But now we can prove it with this Psystar
ruling. Yes, Psystar can ask the US Supreme Court to review
this. But seriously, what are the odds?"</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Am So., 14. Juli 2019 um
19:55 Uhr schrieb Alexander Terekhov <<a href="mailto:herr.alter@gmail.com" target="_blank">herr.alter@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">BTW, after Vernor v. Autodesk there was UMG
vs. Augusto:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.phphosts.org/blog/2011/01/court-rules-that-its-legal-to-sell-promotional-cds/" target="_blank">http://www.phphosts.org/blog/2011/01/court-rules-that-its-legal-to-sell-promotional-cds/</a>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div>See also:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a href="https://www.pcworld.com/article/258720/eu_court_rules_resale_of_used_software_licenses_is_legal_even_online.html" target="_blank">https://www.pcworld.com/article/258720/eu_court_rules_resale_of_used_software_licenses_is_legal_even_online.html</a> <br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
Am So., 14. Juli 2019 um 16:01 Uhr schrieb Pamela Chestek
<<a href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com" target="_blank">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a>>:<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> On 7/13/2019 6:58 AM, Alexander
Terekhov wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">The thing is that 17 USC 117 makes
the act of running/using software unrestricted and
17 USC 109 also severely impedes ability to
control distribution as far as copyright is
concerned. So, you'll have to stick to contractual
covenants and fight against <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_breach" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_breach</a>
... good luck with that :)<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
In both cases, only if you are the owner of a copy.
"Licensees are not entitled to the essential step
defense." <i>Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.</i>, 621 F.3d
1102, 1111 (9th Cir. 2010). It is a rare decision that
holds that a party is an owner of a copy of software
rather than a licensee. <br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail-m_4414458293503084483gmail-m_1379202155470170850m_2949432155646035902gmail-m_8966842028064494609moz-signature">Pamela
S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
PO Box 2492<br>
Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
919-800-8033<br>
<a class="gmail-m_4414458293503084483gmail-m_1379202155470170850m_2949432155646035902gmail-m_8966842028064494609moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com" target="_blank">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a class="gmail-m_4414458293503084483gmail-m_1379202155470170850m_2949432155646035902gmail-m_8966842028064494609moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com" target="_blank">www.chesteklegal.com</a></div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="gmail-m_4414458293503084483mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="gmail-m_4414458293503084483moz-quote-pre">_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
<a class="gmail-m_4414458293503084483moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a class="gmail-m_4414458293503084483moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div>