Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 2/8/2010 10:55 AM, RJack wrote:
> > "authorizing others to authorize" simply doesn't appear in 17 USC 
> > sec. 106 delineating the rights of owners of copyrights. Only in 
> > your Marxist land of GNU are copyright laws written that way.
>
> It's amazing that you GPL skeptics don't realize how absurd your 
> arguments are. Were you correct, which you are not, any printing 
> house working for a publisher would be violating the copyright of an 
> author who had contracted with the publisher to publish his book.

Bullshit Hyman. An author licenses a publisher and its agents to "copy"
and "distribute" his work. The means by which this is accomplished is
covered under the legal concept of "agency".

"Agency is an area of commercial law dealing with a contractual  or
quasi-contractual tripartite, or non-contractual set of relationships
when an agent  is authorized to act on behalf of another (called the
Principal) to create a legal relationship with a Third Party.[1]
Succinctly, it may be referred to as the relationship between a
principal and an agent whereby the principal, expressly or impliedly,
authorizes the agent to work under his control and on his behalf. The
agent is, thus, required to negotiate on behalf of the principal or
bring him and third parties into contractual relationship. This branch
of law separates and regulates the relationships between:
    * Agents and Principals;
    * Agents and the Third Parties with whom they deal on their
Principals' behalf; and
    * Principals and the Third Parties when the Agents purport to deal
on their behalf."

For a technical legal deconstruction see the American Law Institutes'
"Restatement of the Law (Third), Agency".


Keep spinnin' Hyman -- it won't help -- but keep spinnin' anyway.

Sincerely,
RJack