
Supplying Legal Notices for Free Software in your Products - ColanR
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/12/02/supplying-legal-notices-free-software/
======
tzs
> Anyone who distributes the CPU must provide the legal notice, i.e. not just
> Intel but also the computer manufacturers who placed the CPU in a computer,
> and the sales companies that eventually sold the computer to you.

What about the first sale doctrine?

~~~
rocqua
Maybe that is a consumer-protection thing that doesn't extend to commercial
entities?

~~~
jrochkind1
No, it extends to anyone, it's part of copyright law in the US. I'm confused
thinking of how it applies to software licenses though. I guess software
licenses are not a purchase of an object, but a _license_ to use it. (And of
course it's not open source that pioneered this legal application). The first
sale doctrine lets you, for instance, resell a book you buy -- it doesn't let
you print more books. It's unclear and confusing to me how it applies to
what's being discussed too. Probably who knows what a judge/jury would do.

~~~
tzs
To be clear, I'm suggesting first sale applies to to the companies that buy
CPUs from Intel and put them in the computers they build, and the sales
companies that buy those computers and resell them to consumers.

I'm not suggesting it applies to Intel.

Intel is making copies, so they need copyright owner permission.

The company that buys a CPU from Intel and solders it into a computer they
build, and the sales company that later sells that computer to a consumer, are
not making copies. They are just passing on copies they received. Hence, they
should not need copyright owner permission because of first sale.

There is one possible hitch that comes to mind. In the US version of first
sale, it applies to the owner of a copy that was "lawfully made". If Intel is
violating the license, and if that means the copies Intel makes are not
"lawfully made", then first sale does not apply to those copies.

~~~
bdowling
Your second theory is correct. The first sale doctrine does not apply when the
initial copy was not lawfully made, at least under the US Copyright Act.
Without that exception, section 501 imposes strict liability for infringement.
It doesn't require that the plaintiff allege or prove knowledge or bad faith.

The reason for this might be more obvious in the context of something more
obviously infringing, such as bootleg DVD movies. A plaintiff can hold the
reseller of the bootleg DVDs liable just as it could the manufacturer. That's
desirable since the manufacturer could be judgement-proof (e.g., fly by night
company). And we wouldn't want the copyright owner to have to prove that the
reseller knew the DVDs were bootlegs.

In the case of distributing Intel CPUs, the principle isn't as obviously
applicable as it is to bootleg DVDs, but it still applies. So, the resellers
could be held liable for copyright infringment as well.

That being said, since Intel isn't a fly-by-night operation like a
manufacturer of bootleg DVDs, the copyright owner can just go after Intel
directly.

------
MayeulC
The title should probably be something along the lines of "No legal notice
supplied with Intel ME's minix fork".

Interesting read nonetheless. Here, the ones that could sue are the copyright
holders (A.S Tanenbaum), and I would be surprised if they were interested.

~~~
jwilk
AFAICT, Minix 3 copyright is held by Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, not by
Tanenbaum himself.

[http://git.minix3.org/index.cgi?p=minix.git;a=blob;f=LICENSE](http://git.minix3.org/index.cgi?p=minix.git;a=blob;f=LICENSE)

~~~
buckminster
Indeed. And for all anyone knows Intel already has permission from the
university.

------
raverbashing
I think Linus said something like "you don't make friends by suing people" and
while Intel has not followed the license to the letter, court should not be
the first answer to that

~~~
confounded
I don’t see how your feelings are relevant.

Tanenbaum’s software was used against the terms of the license to produce
possibly the most oppressive product in computing — one which he specifically
finds objectionable.

If he ever considers pursuing the case, I’d donate some money!

------
exabrial
I guess the other irony is that every Windows/Intel computer boots Unix
first...

~~~
aetherspawn
Well, the machines that print the chips in the first place probably run Linux.

So I guess it all starts with Linux.

Edit: although, to be fair, open source EDA sucks and the chips were probably
designed on Windows, so..

~~~
j605
Commercial tools run on Linux but they are not open source.

------
djsumdog
All Intel would have needed to do to comply with the license was include a
small blurb in that tiny insert provided with each retail chip. Similar to the
about screen in most mobile apps that list all the individual libraries and
their OSS licenses? Right?

~~~
ovao
According to the article, yes, that would be sufficient for retail chips.

------
mmagin
I find it amusing that everyone is so certain that Intel doesn't have a
special arrangement with the copyright holder.

