[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: RJack
Subject: Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:49:47 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090812)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/8/2010 11:28 AM, RJack 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.

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".

But the legal concept of agency does not appear in 17 USC 106 either.

Neither does it explicitly mention the concept of contracts but
all copyright licenses are contracts. What's your point Hyman?
Denial? Obsfucation?

So on the one hand you say that "authorize to authorize" is not
permitted by the law, and on the other hand you say that "authorize
to authorize" is permitted by the law.

In any case, the GPL says <> Each time you convey
a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from
the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. so all recipients of GPLed code are
receiving authorization from the rights holder.

Sigh... I guess I'll just leave that argument to you and your agents to
try on a federal judge in a copyright infringement case Hyman.

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


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]