Re: GNU licenses

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
> 
> > Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> > [...]
> >> royalties, or a license fee). If you come to such an agreement, you can
> >> distribute the combined work under another license (or no license at
> >> all, in which case standard copyright provisions would apply).
> >
> > Eeckels, Eeckels. No license is needed to "distribute combined work"
> > under 17 USC 117 and 17 USC 109. I mean addition exact copies (e.g.
> > copies of "library" programs inside "executables" or whatever
> > containers and aggregations like jars or whatnot) made under 17 USC
> > 117 and distributed along with "originals" (e.g. downloaded, implied
> > license to save bandwidth aside for a moment) under 17 USC 109.
> >
> >    Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of
> >    this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along
> >    with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part
> >    of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program.
> >
> > And contu6 elaborates: "[t]he sale of a copy of a program by a
> > rightful possessor to another must be of all rights in the program,
> > thus creating a new rightful possessor and destroying that status as
> > regards the seller. This is in accord with the intent of that portion
> > of the law which provides that owners of authorized copies of a
> > copyrighted work may sell those copies without leave of the copyright
> > proprietor.50 ... 50 17 U.S.C. § 109".
> 
> That does not give you the right to create _new_ copies.

Read 17 USC 117, idiot. 

regards,
alexander.