|
From: | RJack |
Subject: | Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak |
Date: | Sun, 07 Feb 2010 07:19:15 -0500 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) |
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:How come that http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html says "Any member of the public is a licensee, and is addressed as "you".That does not make the licensee able to act as licensor with all the possibilities upstream has.
You will never convince Free Softies that a non-exclusive license CANNOT empower a licensee to further authorize copyright permissions for "downstream" licensees. With a non-exclusive license such as the GPL the only thing a licensee can do is effect a transfer of his "contractual interest". The Copyright Act, 17 USC 106, states that "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:...". Unfortunately, Free Softies are so wacked-out on Moglen's "Freedom" Kool-Aid that they are incapable of rational understanding of the words "exclusive" and "author" as used in the Copyright Act. If "authorizing" is reserved as "exclusive" for the "author" of a work how does a "non-owner" do any authorizing? Mentioning little contradictions in logic such as this simply causes Free Softies eyes to glaze over and total deafness sets in. In 24 hours time they are back out in the Blogosphere blathering about the GPL authorizing "downstream" licensees as if there were actually a linear downstream set of distinct licensees existing. Pity the poor Free Softies. Sincerely, RJack
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |