[License-discuss] Essential step defense and first sale

[Alexander Terekhov]

Copyleft is a royalty-free licensing scheme with the intended effect to
make the licensee's distributees become third-party beneficiaries enjoying
lack of restrictions and access to source code. Pretending that the
doctrine of first sale / exhaustion somehow does not affect copies made
under the copylefted permission, copyleft licensing scheme purports to use
copyright law (Stallman thinks so) to "flip it over to serve the opposite
purpose: instead of a means of privatising software, it becomes a means of
keeping software free"
https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/938/860#note39

Am Mo., 22. Juli 2019 um 16:52 Uhr schrieb Russell McOrmond <
russellmcormond at gmail.com>:

>
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 8:49 PM Alexander Terekhov <herr.alter at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> So here we have pretty direct confirmation of 17 USC 117. Now just try to
>> imagine what would the court say if Monsanto would had copylefted the
>> reproduction right and sued BOWMAN in patent (tort/infringement) rather
>> than contract (breach) for failure to fulfill some "conditions" (factually
>> contractual covenants) while distributing beans lawfully made under some
>> patentlefted license...
>>
>
> I've been curious about your use of *left here (copyleft, patentleft,
> etc), and what you are trying to mean with these terms.
>
> When I first heard the term "copyleft" in the early 1990's it was obvious
> what the term was intended to mean:  an interesting use of a copyright
> license to reduce the control that software copyright holders had on users
> of that software. This included attempting to limit the control of authors
> of derivative works, where at the time we had common understanding of what
> was considered a derivative and what was clearly not.
>
>
> There is now a class of allegedly FLOSS reciprocal licenses that attempt
> to use licensing and contract law for very different (I suggest opposing)
> purposes, some of which seek to extend the control that software copyright
> and patent holders might have to enact some other unrelated policy purpose.
>
> Is your use of *left an attempt to use that term in a derogatory way to
> oppose this new class of licenses, to oppose the original goal, or
> something entirely different?  I can't at all tell from your usage what
> your intended meaning is.
>
> --
> Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
>
> Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property rights
> as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
> http://l.c11.ca/ict/
>
> "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
> manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or portable
> media player from my cold dead hands!" http://c11.ca/own
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190722/f77cbf0f/attachment.html>