[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GPL is like a cancer
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: GPL is like a cancer |
Date: |
Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:42:15 +0200 |
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
[...]
> On what basis are you denying copyright owners the right to delegate
> licensing authority to others?
Do you mean sublicensing (outright assignment of exclusive rights
aside), Rahul?
The act of sublicensing ("delegate[d] licensing") is what happens
when a licensee becomes a licensor to some other party by granting
some or all of the exclusive rights that they received as a
licensee.
The thing is that nonexclusive copyright licenses are generally
indivisible as a matter of law (this is referred to as "settled law"
in every source you can find) unless the licensing contract states
otherwise. This means that a nonexclusive license does not carry an
implicit sublicense agreement. With the exception of the MIT License
(which contains a sublicense clause), permissive licenses generally
do not include a sublicense right and instead offer a direct grant
of rights from the original licensor to any recipient of source code
released by him or her under that license.
Actually, according to the 9th Circuit, exclusive licensees are not
transferable or sublicenseable either unless the licensing contract
states otherwise. See Gardner v. Nike, a case which appears to have
surprised a lot of lawyers at the time:
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/institutes/bclt/pubs/annrev/exmplrs/csum/gardnervcsum.pdf
I also note that GNUtards seem to insist on tying the concept of
"relicensing" to the concept of the GPL "compatibility":
http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/barcelona-rms-transcript.en.html
"The idea is that there are some other Free Software licences which
are compatible with the GPL meaning that if a program is released
under one of those licences, that licence gives, effectively,
permission to relicence under the GPL. There are two ways that can
happen. Some licences explicitly say "you can also use this program
under the GNU GPL". In other cases, it's because the licence is so
permissive that to relicence it under the GNU GPL is permitted."
This doesn't seem to be a smart idea on GNUtards part because it
makes the public domain and BSDL-like permissive licensed code
without sublicense grant totally GPL incompatible!
Stop being utter retard, Rahul.
regards,
alexander.
--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
- Re: GPL is like a cancer, (continued)
- Re: GPL is like a cancer, dr_nikolaus_klepp, 2009/04/07
- Re: GPL is like a cancer, Lusotec, 2009/04/08
- Re: GPL is like a cancer, David Kastrup, 2009/04/14
- Re: GPL is like a cancer, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/04/14
- Re: GPL is like a cancer, Thufir Hawat, 2009/04/16
- Re: GPL is like a cancer, Rjack, 2009/04/16
- Re: GPL is like a cancer, Rahul Dhesi, 2009/04/17
- Re: GPL is like a cancer, Rjack, 2009/04/16
- Re: GPL is like a cancer,
Alexander Terekhov <=
- Re: GPL is like a cancer, none of your buisiness, 2009/04/17
- Re: GPL is like a cancer, Rjack, 2009/04/16