[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GPL misappropriation

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: GPL misappropriation
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:10:11 -0000
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux)

RJack <> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Alexander Terekhov <> writes:
>>> David Kastrup wrote: [...]
>>>> BSDL licensed material does not restrict sublicensing to identical
>>>> terms.
>>> "Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights, no right to
>>> sublicense is generally presumed.5 ... 5 Raufast SA v. Kniers
>>> Pizzazz, Ltd., 208 USPQ (BNA) 699 (EDNY 1980). "
>> What about "Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights" do you
>> not understand?
> Unfortunately DAK your lack of understanding of the English language
> involving the use of the word "exclusive" in:
> "ยง 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works.
> Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this
> title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the
> following:. . ."

What about "and to authorize" did you not understand?

> leaves you incapable of understanding that under U.S. copyright law
> the term 'sublicense" can mean "transfer of ownership" or "transfer of
> contractual interest". There is *no* exclusive right for an owner to
> authorize someone who is not the owner of a copyright to "license" a
> work again. (It wouldn't be an exclusive right would it?)

You are confused.  If I am the owner of a horse, I can authorize someone
else to sell it, even though ownership gives _me_ the exclusive right.

The whole point of authorization is to enable someone to act in one's

> It-just-ain't-gonna-happen. Nada, nope, zilch, not, nein!!!!!!

Just because you pretend not to understand common concepts your absurd
protestations do not gain any plausibility.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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