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

[RJack]

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 
> <http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html> 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.

Sincerely,
RJack