Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 01:46:58 -0400
From: Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear  copyright notice.
Message-ID: <20050413014658.G24721@links.magenta.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0504122153210.3024@be1.lrz> <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKGEPBDBAB.davids@webmaster.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKGEPBDBAB.davids@webmaster.com>; from davids@webmaster.com on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:45:43PM -0700
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1139
Lines: 24

On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:45:43PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> 	This wasn't a copyright case. The court only refused to uphold the
> agreement because there was no oppurtunity to review the agreement before
> purchase. So it certainly wouldn't apply to a click-through type agreement.

http://www.answers.com/topic/first-sale-doctrine cites several cases,
and has a very nice writeup on the current status of this issue.

In essence, you're claiming that the difference between Davidson
& Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004) and other cases such as
Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000)
is that the presence of a click-through is the determining factor.
Of course, it could just as easily be something else (for example,
admitting in court agreement with the license).

Does this thread have anything to do with the linux kernel at this point?

-- 
Raul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/