[linux-elitists] Softman v. Adobe

Don Marti dmarti@zgp.org
Sun Nov 4 11:58:09 PST 2001


"The Court understands fully why licensing has many advantages for
software publishers.  However, this preference does not alter the
Court's analysis that the substance of the transaction at issue
here is a sale and not a license."

http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/RecentPubOp.nsf/bb61c530eab0911c882567cf005ac6f9/574aa79ff518021188256aed006ea2dc/$FILE/CV00-04161DDP.pdf

And if it's a sale, the purchaser gets the power of the First Sale
Doctrine behind him.  If you just handle the software, and don't
run it, the EULA can't touch you.  Woo-hah!

Of course we all like to see Adobe lose a case (OK, just a motion
for preliminary injunction, but still)...but more importantly, does
this tend to imply that if you get a copy of proprietary software
bundled with hardware, you can sell the copy?  

Somebody should tell eBay:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2000/5/19/165146/255

Hell, somebody should tell Mr. Robert Austin.  People at Robert
Austin shows will buy any damn thing, even the demo version of
"Pr0n GIF Workshop" that came with your webcam.

This isn't quite as good as a real Windows Refund, but being able
to sell the proprietary software that came with your laptop to a
proprietary software weenie who's building his own machine is a
good thing for people who didn't want the proprietary software.

-- 
Don Marti          What do we want?  Free Dmitry!  When do we want it?  Now!
http://zgp.org/~dmarti
dmarti@zgp.org                                  Free the web, burn all GIFs.
                                                     http://burnallgifs.org/



More information about the linux-elitists mailing list