Software downloads and first sale (and also copying under Art.5(1) 2009/24/EC aka 17 USC 117 in US) in Europe
Alexander Terekhov
"Press Release
Munich 03 February 2011
usedSoft welcomes clarification of the download issue by the ECJ
European Court of Justice now to decide whether downloaded software may
be traded as used/Trade of used software remains legal usedSoft has
expressly welcomed the ruling of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in
the Oracle case. �Asking the European Court of Justice to make a final
ruling is the logical and correct decision,� declared usedSoft managing
director Peter Schneider. �Ultimately, the resale of downloaded software
is based on European regulations which must also be clarified for all of
Europe.�
The Federal Court of Justice has submitted the Oracle case to the
European Court of Justice for a ruling. The ECJ will now decide,
presumably within one or two years, whether software which was
transmitted to the buyer online may also be traded as used. �This is
exactly what we want to achieve, namely, final clarity,� added
Schneider. �We regard this to be an important stepping stone victory on
the way to truly free trade on the software market.�
However, the future decision by the ECJ will have little impact on the
trade with used software because the legal circumstances regarding trade
with �used� software are largely clarified. As the BGH declared in its
press release today: �According to Art. 5 (1) of the directive
2009/24/EC, the reproduction of a computer program does not, in the
absence of specific contractual provisions, require the authorisation of
the rightholder �
Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, German Federal Minister of Justice,
also confirmed in September 2010 that trade with �used� software is
essentially legal. Legal uncertainty exists only with respect to
software which has been sold online. Courts in Munich and Hamburg have
handed down similar decisions in recent years. The RC Munich, for
example, ruled in April 2008 �that the sale or vending of single
Microsoft software licences previously granted within the framework of
volume licence agreements is fundamentally possible as an effective
transaction even without the consent of Microsoft.�
About usedSoft
usedSoft was set up in 2003, and it is a leading European supplier of
used software originating from all application fields. Buyers of
usedSoft licences are companies as well as software dealers. Customers
of usedSoft are, among others, companies such as Edeka, KarstadtQuelle,
Kaufland, Neckermann, Rewe, the Law Office Holme Roberts & Owen, as well
as a leading soccer club belonging to the German Soccer League and a
number of different Savings Banks. German authorities are more and more
using used software as well: Next to the Bavarian State Capital of
Munich, the German Federal Social Court in Kassel, the Municipal
Administration of Bad Salzuflen and the Data Central Office of
Baden-W�rttemberg, there were more than 100 additional local authorities
benefiting from usedSoft licences. The cost-saving benefit when
purchasing already used licences ranges between 20 and 50 percent of the
sales price.
For further inquiry, please contact:
Christoph M�ller m�ller pr Telefon: +49 (0)221 80 10 87-87 Email:
c...@moeller-pr.de www.moeller-pr.de"
"Bundesgerichtshof
Mitteilung der Pressestelle
Nr. 21/2011
Bundesgerichtshof legt EuGH Fragen zur Zul�ssigkeit des Vertriebs
"gebrauchter" Softwarelizenzen vor Der u. a. f�r das Urheberrecht
zust�ndige I. Zivilsenat des Bundesgerichtshofs hat dem Gerichtshof der
Europ�ischen Union heute Fragen zur urheberrechtlichen Zul�ssigkeit des
Vertriebs "gebrauchter" Softwarelizenzen zur Vorabentscheidung
vorgelegt.
Die Kl�gerin entwickelt Computersoftware, die sie ganz �berwiegend in
der Weise vertreibt, dass die Kunden keinen Datentr�ger erhalten,
sondern die Software von der Internetseite der Kl�gerin auf ihren
Computer herunterladen. In den Lizenzvertr�gen der Kl�gerin ist
bestimmt, dass das Nutzungsrecht, das die Kl�gerin ihren Kunden an den
Computerprogrammen einr�umt, nicht abtretbar ist.
Die Beklagte handelt mit "gebrauchten" Softwarelizenzen. Im Oktober 2005
bot sie "bereits benutzte" Lizenzen f�r Programme der Kl�gerin an. Dabei
verwies sie auf ein Notartestat, in dem auf eine Best�tigung des
urspr�nglichen Lizenznehmers verwiesen wird, wonach er rechtm��iger
Inhaber der Lizenzen gewesen sei, diese nicht mehr benutze und den
Kaufpreis vollst�ndig bezahlt habe. Kunden der Beklagten laden nach dem
Erwerb einer "gebrauchten" Lizenz die entsprechende Software von der
Internetseite der Kl�gerin auf einen Datentr�ger herunter.
Die Kl�gerin ist der Auffassung, die Beklagte verletze dadurch, dass sie
die Erwerber "gebrauchter" Lizenzen dazu veranlasse, die entsprechenden
Computerprogramme zu vervielf�ltigen, das Urheberrecht an diesen
Programmen. Sie hat die Beklagte deshalb auf Unterlassung in Anspruch
genommen.
Landgericht und Berufungsgericht haben der Klage stattgegeben. Auf die
Revision der Beklagten hat der Bundesgerichtshof das Verfahren
ausgesetzt und dem Gerichtshof der Europ�ischen Union einige Fragen zur
Auslegung der Richtlinie 2009/24/EG �ber den Rechtsschutz von
Computerprogrammen zur Vorabentscheidung vorgelegt.
Die Kunden der Beklagten greifen durch das Herunterladen der
Computerprogramme - so der BGH - in das nach � 69c Nr. 1 UrhG
ausschlie�lich dem Rechtsinhaber zustehende Recht zur Vervielf�ltigung
der Computerprogramme ein. Da die Beklagte ihre Kunden durch das Angebot
"gebrauchter" Lizenzen zu diesem Eingriff veranlasst, kann sie auf
Unterlassung in Anspruch genommen werden, falls ihre Kunden nicht zur
Vervielf�ltigung der Programme berechtigt sind. Die Kunden der Beklagten
k�nnen sich nach Auffassung des BGH allerdings m�glicherweise auf die
Regelung des � 69d Abs. 1 UrhG berufen, die Art. 5 Abs. 1 der Richtlinie
2009/24/EG ins deutsche Recht umsetzt und daher richtlinienkonform
auszulegen ist. Nach Art. 5 Abs. 1 der Richtlinie 2009/24/EG bedarf die
Vervielf�ltigung eines Computerprogramms - solange nichts anderes
vereinbart ist - nicht der Zustimmung des Rechtsinhabers, wenn sie f�r
eine bestimmungsgem��e Benutzung des Computerprogramms durch den
rechtm��igen Erwerber notwendig ist. Es stellt sich daher die Frage, ob
und gegebenenfalls unter welchen Voraussetzungen derjenige, der eine
"gebrauchte" Softwarelizenz erworben hat, als "rechtm��iger Erwerber"
des entsprechenden Computerprogramms anzusehen ist. In diesem
Zusammenhang kann sich auch die weitere Frage stellen, ob sich das
Verbreitungsrecht des Rechtsinhabers ersch�pft, wenn ein
Computerprogramm mit seiner Zustimmung im Wege der Online-�bermittlung
in Verkehr gebracht worden ist.
Beschluss vom 3. Februar 2011 - I ZR 129/08 - UsedSoft
LG M�nchen I - Urteil vom 15. M�rz 2007 � 7 O 7061/06
ZUM 2007, 409 = CR 2007, 356
OLG M�nchen - Urteil vom 3. Juli 2008 � 6 U 2759/07
ZUM 2009, 70 = CR 2008, 551
Karlsruhe, den 3. Februar 2011
Pressestelle des Bundesgerichtshofs
76125 Karlsruhe
Telefon (0721) 159-5013
Telefax (0721) 159-5501"
regards,
alexander.
--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
me
LMAO... A BSD replacement for BusyBox under a BSD license.
From ROB LANDLEY no less:
"Toybox is released under a simple 2-clause BSD-style license."
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Controversy-around-Busybox-alternative-1426119.html
http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/52496-busybox-replacement-project-fuels-animated-verbal-spat
http://www.landley.net/toybox/about.html
Sincerely,
RJack :)
RJack
"Once again, an FSF zealot reduces the amount of code written for Linux
with a license tantrum. Driving developers away since 1983!"
http://lwn.net/Articles/478366/
Sincerely,
RJack :)
RJack
>
December 16, 2011...
"The FSF is its own worst enemy, and it has comprehensively fragmented
and FUDded its greatest achievement. The graph in the above article
estimates that GPL usage in open source software will fall below 50%
next year, and anybody familiar with network effects can expect it to
retreat to a niche pretty quickly after that.
The silver lining in all this is it reduces the FSF to complete
irrelevance, allowing the open source developers to get on with their
work without distraction from religious zealots."
http://landley.net/notes-2011.html#16-12-2011
Sincerely,
RJack :)
7
>
> LMAO... A BSD replacement for BusyBox under a BSD license.
>
> From ROB LANDLEY no less:
> "Toybox is released under a simple 2-clause BSD-style license."
Use GPL license if you don't want to be cut out
of derivative works that include your contributions.
> http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Controversy-around-Busybox-
alternative-1426119.html
>
> http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/52496-busybox-
7
> On 2/1/2012 6:45 PM, me wrote:
>>
>> LMAO... A BSD replacement for BusyBox under a BSD license.
>>
>> From ROB LANDLEY no less: "Toybox is released under a simple 2-clause
>> BSD-style license."
>>
alternative-1426119.html
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/52496-busybox-
replacement-project-fuels-animated-verbal-spat
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sincerely, RJack :)
>
> From Rob Landley:
>
> December 16, 2011...
>
> "The FSF is its own worst enemy, and it has comprehensively fragmented
> and FUDded its greatest achievement.
BSD license becomes less free as time goes by.
Use GPL license if you don't want to be cut out
of derivative works that include your contributions.
All that thanks to FSF and its persuit of freedom software.
The products the got created on the back of FSF and its revolutionary
GPL license are these:
All flat TVs, printers, ipwebcams, routers, set top boxes,
MP3, MP4, MP5 players, HD recorders, DVD recorders, DVD players,
Android phones and tablets, NAS, media streamers, etc.
The engineers who release under FSF's GPL source code for free ask only that
you use it as often as possible. They make their money from support.
Electronics retailers make most of their money with Linux
and can make even more money by going out there are specifying
even more Linux in all their gadgets. Does your fridge have an IP webcam?
No? Ask Linux engineers to put in a webcam and it gets done for about $20
because the software and developer systems are free which means the gadget
get built at a lower cost than any other competing solution, which means
more features to differentiate your value products and make more money
with Linux!!
chrisv
>LMAO... A BSD replacement for BusyBox under a BSD license.
>
> From ROB LANDLEY no less:
>"Toybox is released under a simple 2-clause BSD-style license."
>Sincerely,
>RJack :)
Oh, it's you. *plonk*
Alexander Terekhov
http://lwn.net/Articles/478361/
-----
Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement
Posted Jan 31, 2012 19:22 UTC (Tue) by landley (guest, #6789)
In reply to: Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement by fb
Parent article: Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement
As the ex-maintainer of busybox who STARTED those lawsuits in the first
place and now HUGELY REGRETS ever having done so, I think I'm entitled
to stop the lawsuits in whatever way I see fit.
They never resulted ina single line of code added to the busybox
repository. They HAVE resulted in more than one company exiting Linux
development entirely and switching to non-Linux operating systems for
their embedded products, and they're a big part of the reason behind
Android's "No GPL in userspace" policy. (Which is Google, not Sony.)
Toybox is my project. I've been doing it since 2006 because I believe I
can write a better project than busybox from an engineering perspective.
I mothballed it because BusyBox had a 10 year headstart so I didn't
think it mattered how much BETTER it was, nobody would use it. Tim
pointed out I was wrong about that, I _agreed_ with him once I thought
about it, so I've started it up again.
Rob
-----
regards,
alexander.
--
http://web.archive.org/web/20090626051346/http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
Ivan Shmakov
[Dropped news:comp.os.linux.advocacy for nntp://aioe.org/ is
against such a cross-post.]
[…]
> They never resulted ina single line of code added to the busybox
> repository. They HAVE resulted in more than one company exiting
> Linux development entirely and switching to non-Linux operating
> systems for their embedded products, and they're a big part of the
> reason behind Android's "No GPL in userspace" policy. (Which is
> Google, not Sony.)
a variety of vendors (including, but not limited, to a certain
corporation based in Redmond), which weren't based on Linux.
Then, we've (allegedly) had proprietary solutions, from another
host of vendors, which were based Linux.
Now, they say that we're going to have proprietary solutions
which aren't based on Linux once again.
Doesn't it seem like a complete disaster for those of us who
/love/ to tinker much more than to play new shiny toys, or do
our respective full time jobs?
[…]
--
FSF associate member #7257