Rjack wrote:
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: ... "
Of course. And that is the case when copyright owners use the GPL to distribute their works. They grant non-exclusive, irrevocable, and perpetual (<http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html>) rights to third parties, as is their exclusive right. Once such perpetual grants have been made, there are no "takebacks" except as defined by the author termination clause in 17 USC 203. This is clearly stated in 17 USC 205(e): <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html> e) Priority between Conflicting Transfer of Ownership and Nonexclusive License. — A nonexclusive license, whether recorded or not, prevails over a conflicting transfer of copyright ownership if the license is evidenced by a written instrument signed by the owner of the rights licensed or such owner's duly authorized agent, and if (1) the license was taken before execution of the transfer; or (2) the license was taken in good faith before recordation of the transfer and without notice of it. So a new owner has no power over preexisting non-exclusive licenses regardless of his newly acquired exclusive rights. The sticking point in the case of open licenses might be the lack of a signed written instrument. But given industry practice and the clear intent of the copyright holder when distributing his content along with a license, a court could very well agree that the signature requirement is not binding under these circumstances. A second sticking point in the case of the GPL might be the notion that recipients of copies gain a license grant from the copyright holder, and so a new holder might deny such licenses. I have no idea how this would work out - I don't even know if the concept itself has any actual legal meaning. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
