[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 16:10:26 -0000
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > Under the German copyright act ONLY EXCLUSIVE LICENSEES CAN
>> Wrong.  You still don't get it.  Exclusive licensees _automatically_
>> receive the right to sublicense.  
> Not automatically, dummkopf dak.
> "Urteil vom LG Leipzig
> Aktenzeichen: 05 O 1408/06, 5 O 1408/06
> Entscheidungsdatum: 13. November 2006
> Leitsätze
> Mit der Übertragung des ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes erwirbt der
> Lizenznehmer gemäß §§ 31 Abs. 3, 35 UrhG nicht das Recht, seinerseits
> ohne Zustimmung des Urhebers Unterlizenzen an Dritte zu erteilen.


So you cite conflicting opinions (the second from an actual verdict)
whether or not an exclusive usage right automatically includes the right
to sublicense.

That's nice, or less nice.  But it still does not say anything about the
situation where a licensee is _explicitly_ granted the right to modify
and redistribute under conditions allowing placing the modified whole
under different licenses meeting specified restrictions.

_Both_ of your quotes are talking about an _automatic_ grant.  The
second actually restricts this further:

    Ein Recht zur Lizenzierung von Dritten muss deshalb zwischen dem
    Urheber und dem Inhaber des ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes
    ausdrücklich vereinbart werden

Which says that sublicensing has to _either_ explicitly arranged for
(like the BSDL licenses do, allowing the propagation of copies to third
parties under given conditions)

    oder es muss sich jedenfalls aus den Umständen des Vertragsschlusses
    eindeutig ergeben, dass von Seiten des Urhebers ein solches Recht
    dem Inhaber des Nutzungsrechtes eingeräumt werden soll.

_or_ the circumstances of the contract formation have to make it
unambiguous that the author intends to give such a right to the
recipient of the usage rights.

So you manage to quote a source that lists _several_ possibilities for
arranging the bestowment of sublicensing rights to an exclusive

There is nothing here that would inherently be different with regard to
non-exclusive licensees.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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