Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

The posted article lacks a lot of details. According to a more comprehensive one[1] (german as well):

- The court has ruled that reselling doesn't violate copyright, but nothing prevents a software vendor from forbidding the reselling in it's license. The court didn't force vendors/service providers to permit reselling.

- The court has not demanded that vendors enable the reselling technically.

- The court has limited its ruling to computer programs, and excluded media like ebooks, video, music and the like.

So in effect, this will change: Software vendors will have to change their licenses to prevent reselling.

[1]: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/EuGH-Klares-Ja-zum-We...




I read the actual ruling, or at least the official English translation of it[1].

While I'm not a lawyer, it seems abundantly clear that the court considered taking money for a permanent licence to be a sale. That brings first sale rules into the picture, for example, "[t]he first sale in the Community of the original of a work or copies thereof by the rightholder or with his consent exhausts the right to control resale of that object in the Community."

Oracle's licence agreement did clearly say that the licence was non-transferrable, and they lost.

[1] http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&...


Exactly that is what is forbidden, by my reading. From the press release:

  Therefore, even if the license agreement prohibits a further transfer, the rightholder can no longer oppose the resale of that copy.
As to copyright, it merely stated that on resale, the making of a digital copy cannot be prohibited, but the seller's copy must be rendered unusable.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: