Christoph Ludwig wrote: [...]
However, that brought another question to my mind: USC can only apply if at least one party of the license agreement is living or based
"First sale" is pretty universal copyright principle. <quote source=http://tinyurl.com/3c2n2> (1) First Sale Doctrine The first sale doctrine was first analyzed by the United States Supreme Court in Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908). [...] One significant effect of § 109(a) is to limit the exclusive right to distribute copies to their first voluntary disposition, and thus negate copyright owner control over further or downstream transfer to a third party. Quality King Distrib. v. LAnza Research Intl, Inc., 523 U.S. 135, 142-44 (1998). [...] Adobe argues that the first sale doctrine does not apply because Adobe does not sell or authorize any sale of its software. Adobe characterizes each transaction throughout the entire stream of commerce as a license.8 Adobe asserts that its license defines the relationship between Adobe and any third-party such that a breach of the license constitutes copyright infringement. This assertion is not accurate because copyright law in fact provides certain rights to owners of a particular copy. This grant of rights is independent from any purported grant of rights from Adobe. The Adobe license compels third-parties to relinquish rights that the third-parties enjoy under copyright law. [...] (2) Sale v. License (a) Historical Background Historically, the purpose of licensing computer program copy use was to employ contract terms to augment trade secret protection in order to protect against unauthorized copying at a time when, first, the existence of a copyright in computer programs was doubtful, and, later, when the extent to which copyright provided protection was uncertain. (See Rice Decl. ¶ 6.) Computer program copy use licensing continued after federal courts interpreted the Copyright Act to provide substantial protection for computer programs as literary works. (Id. at ¶ 7.) In Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wise Technology, the Third Circuit examined the historical development of the use of licensing in the software industry and concluded that subsequent changes to the Copyright Act had rendered the need to characterize the transaction as a license largely anachronistic. 939 F.2d 91, 96 n.7 (3d Cir. 1991).10 (b) Adobe Sells its Software A number of courts have held that the sale of software is the sale of a good within the meaning of Uniform Commercial Code. Advent Sys. Ltd. v. Unisys Corp., 925 F.2d 670, 676 (3d Cir. 1991); Step- Saver, 929 F.2d at 99-100; Downriver Internists v. Harris Corp., 929 F.2d 1147, 1150 (6th Cir. 1991). [...] Other courts have reached the same conclusion: software is sold and not licensed. </quote> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=40D8767D.5A830BA%40web.de (Subject: Re: Purchasing The Standard) http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=40D872CB.BF665A1E%40web.de (Subject: Re: Purchasing The Standard) Read also this: [MUST READ] http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/reply/Reply008.pdf As for Germany, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/09/04/german_court_ruling_triggers (German court ruling triggers 30% price cuts on Windows) ;-)
in the US. (That's my layman's understanding, at least - IANAL) But is Boost a legal entity that can be party to a contract? Or do I in fact accept license agreements with the individual Boost contributors?
Boost license is not a contract. It's a bunch of unilateral permissions. Well, but given the utterly silly ruling of the Munich district court against the Sitecom in the GPL case recently... you never know. Hopefully, it will be corrected on appeal (if the Sitecom will choose to appeal it). regards, alexander.