> If that was true, anyone reselling an Android phone could open themselves up to legal liability.

That’s only an appeal to ridicule. If those are valid, here’s an opposing one:

If this is not true, then any company can violate the GPL all it likes just by funneling all its products through a second company, like a reseller.

▲

gpm 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Here's an appeal to the law, the doctrine of copyright exhaustion (also known as the first sale doctrine) dictates that copyright is exhausted upon the first sale of the device (i.e. to the distributor) and they have no rights to control or prevent further sales.

That the GPL potentially fails to achieve what it intends to is neither a legal argument, nor particularly surprising.

▲

AnthonyMouse an hour ago | parent [-]

Wouldn't that imply that end-user license agreements are all unenforceable because the software was sold through a retailer, and even if it wasn't you could just a get a secondhand copy?

▲

gpm an hour ago | parent [-]

By my understanding EULAs are based on contract law and having a clickwrap agreement that requires you agree to it before using the software, not copyright law. Except perhaps to the extent that copyright law would prevent you from creating a derivative work that doesn't require you to agree to that clickwrap agreement prior to using the software.

	▲	AnthonyMouse an hour ago \| parent [-]
		How does that solve it? Alice buys the software, clicks "agree" so that it runs and then sells it to Bob who uses it without ever agreeing.