🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3894D5EE.CE3BF2B@gmx.de>,
Bernd Paysan  <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote:
>Certainly not. In the GPL case, you *never* transfer ownership, since
>only the copyright holder "owns" the software (the GPL grants almost
>"ownership" for all practical purposes to the licensee, but not the one
>to change the license). The German civil law deliberately distinguishs
>between ownership and possession, where the owner is who says what can
>be done with something (sell it, lend it, limit usage), and the
>possessor actually handles it. So you don't own your companie's pens,
>but you possess them. Yes, this sounds stupid, because in common speech,
>both words have the same meaning. AFAIK the US law speech uses the same
>terms.
>
    This is false.  I own all my copies of GPL'ed software.  I do not own
the copyrights to said software.  The latter does not contradict the
former.  Proprietary software "End User License Agreements" purport that
the copy of the software remains with the publisher, so that they can
claim contractual terms circumventing the fair use provisions of copyright
law.  But that is not the case with the GPL, or anywhere near a necessary
provision for software selling. (and it's not legally clear that such
"licenses" are actual contracts and enforceable as such - at least in
the US).
    Does this group have a FAQ?

Lynn