Re: GPL misappropriation

[David Kastrup]

RJack <user@example.net> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> 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:
>
> "§ 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
behalf.

> 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