[gpm]

Here's an appeal to the law, the doctrine of copyright exhaustion (also known as the first sale doctrine) dictates that copyright is exhausted upon the first sale of the device (i.e. to the distributor) and they have no rights to control or prevent further sales.

That the GPL potentially fails to achieve what it intends to is neither a legal argument, nor particularly surprising.

[AnthonyMouse]

Wouldn't that imply that end-user license agreements are all unenforceable because the software was sold through a retailer, and even if it wasn't you could just a get a secondhand copy?

[gpm]

By my understanding EULAs are based on contract law and having a clickwrap agreement that requires you agree to it before using the software, not copyright law. Except perhaps to the extent that copyright law would prevent you from creating a derivative work that doesn't require you to agree to that clickwrap agreement prior to using the software.

[AnthonyMouse]

How does that solve it? Alice buys the software, clicks "agree" so that it runs and then sells it to Bob who uses it without ever agreeing.

[verall]

Somewhere deep in the legalese Alice agreed she would not do that, i.e. "non transferable license".

[AnthonyMouse]

Isn't that the part that would violate the first sale doctrine?

[waste_monk]

I think the usual argument is that you don't own the digital good, you have a license to use it, and that license is between you and the originator (or their reseller) directly. And you aren't allowed to resell the license.

E.g. this sort of thing https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/pc-gaming/steam-che...

[gpm]

No, not if the same itself was unlawful because Alice signed a contract to not sell it like that.

The GPL notably allows for the sale, it was legal here.

[conartist6]

So too is the GPL a contract, or at least nobody has proven that it is not a contract and the SFC will fight to prove that it is

[gpm]

Sure, maybe anyways but let's assume it is, the parties to that contract are the manufacturer and the copyright holder. The contract allows the manufacturer to distribute it to the distributor without requiring the distributor to agree to the terms and itself become a party. The distributor can then sell the device with the software on it on without acquiring a license and becoming a party to the contract because the copyright has been exhausted (first sale doctrine).

EULA's get around this by forcing the end user to become a party to the contract via a click wrap agreement. There is usually no such click wrap agreement binding the distributor in the case of the GPL. And the GPL doesn't require the creation or maintenance of such a click wrap agreement so the manufacturer would be free to remove it even if the original software had one.

[Y_Y]

Like when I buy a second hand book and then I start printing copies of the book and selling them without any agreement with the original author or publisher?

[gpm]

Like when you buy or sell a second hand book without getting permission from the copyright holder to distribute their copyrighted material, which would otherwise be necessary.

[8ytecoder]

Distribution agreement is generally different from a sale. Distributors act as agents of the manufacturer. It’s not yet counted as a sale. Most warranties are limited to first owner and do not transfer. How do you think this squares with that? Does it mean I don’t get warranty on the dishwasher I got from Costco? It’s also the same principle of a distributor acting as an agent that enables the manufacturer to have a contract with you.

[mr_toad]

> first sale doctrine) dictates that copyright is exhausted upon the first sale of the device (i.e. to the distributor).

The copyright doesn’t go away when copies are sold to a distributor. Someone (probably the manufacturer) still has legal obligations to the copyright holder.

[chii]

copyright doesn't give you the kind of rights that a GPL license does - which is not based on copyright, but on contract law (ala, it's in the name - licenses).

A sale of an object does not transfer those licenses (but those licenses are still valid on the seller - a manufacturer selling widgets will have to obey the GPL clauses. If an end user of this widget wants the source code, they have to go back all the way to the manufacturer, rather than any of the middle-men presumably).

[gpm]

With regards to further distribution of the copy sold to the distributor, it does go away.