AIX documentation

Fred Cisin cisin at
Sun Mar 12 21:07:42 CDT 2017

>>>> AIX documentation, but the trouble is, there are from security 
>>>> classes that were taught by private companies. Am I legally allowed 
>>>> to resell these?
>> While not a COPYRIGHT issue, it is possible, and not unlikely, that they
>> were considered to be part of the course work, and that those taking the
>> course may have agreed, explicitly or implicitly, not to pass them on.

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Warner Losh wrote:
> Such an agreement would need to be in writing and explicit. Otherwise
> it's just like a text book which you bought for the class. See below
> for what you can do.

Materials supplied as part of a course, are NOT just like a text book, 
which is commercially available separately.  These materials were 
apparently never available except by enrolling in the course.

Sure, such an agreement would have to exit, but not necessarily attached 
to the course workbook.  It could exist as part of the documents that the 
participant signed to REGISTER for the course.
And, as the appellate court ruled in ProCD V Zeidenberg, it does not have 
to be in writing, nor signed, so long as it is known AT THE TIME that the 
agreement was reached. (not necessarily NOW!)

There is no problem with selling the sole copy in terms of COPYRIGHT law.
Your comments are entirely about the copyright law.  Which is not the 
issue to be concerned about in this case.

The worse problem here is whether the previous owner entered into a 
licence agreement as part of registering for the course.

I have run into such license agreements in registering for commercial 
courses.   ("all materials used in the course . . . ")

Not seeing a license agreement attached to the materials is sufficient to 
show that you had no willful intent to violate it, and that should be 
enough to sell them, in good faith.  But it doesn't mean that it doesn't 

(Certainly having a work with the title/verso (copyright) page torn out 
is not the same as it never having had one, of course, but the license 
agreement need never have been physically attached)

Remember that ProCD V Zeidenberg was about material that is presumably not 
even copyrightable!  but the courts upheld a violation of license, on a 
shrink-wrap license!  It was a LICENSE lawsuit, not a copyright one, 
although that was also alleged.
Zeidenberg bought a retail "single user" copy (not even the multi-user 
version) of a CD-ROM telephone directory.  He then created a website 
selling access to the content from it.

The appellate court explicitly ruled that ProCD did NOT have to print the 
license agreement on the outside of the box.

The licensee does NOT need to sign!
"A contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show 
agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the 
existence of such a contract."  (about EXACTLY that.)
(such as the documents regietering for the course!)
Zeidenberg DID click the "I accept" box.
If there WAS a license agreement, then it was abject stupidity for the 
licensor of these materials not to embed that information on the item!

Personally, I feel that the court gave far too much power to adhesion 

IANAL,  "I Ain't No Asshole Lawyer"
Grumpy Ol' Fred     		cisin at

More information about the cctalk mailing list