Re: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?

[Rjack]

John Hasler wrote:
> Hyman Rosen writes:
> > There is no need for a signed license in the absence of a
> > conflicting transfer.
>
> It is not at all clear that the GPL is not a signed license in the
> broad sense in which judges often interpret "signed".  "Signed
> written document" does not necessarily mean a quill pen scratching
> on parchment.  It merely implies an individual's explicit agreement
> to a set of terms recorded in a permanent medium.

You're missing the point. The GPL's goal is to purportedly replicate
licenses "downstream" to all third parties. It is not possible for the
holder of a non-exclusive license (a non-owner) to grant a *new*
license downstream. You can't license what you don't own. Only the
*owner* of copyright may *authorize* permissions.

Sincerely,
Rjack