Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> > 2) Copyright law seems even in the US holds that nonexclusive licenses >> > are clearly indivisible and do not automatically grant sublicense >> > rights (a sublicense being a new license issued by a licensee). >> >> The GPL is used for distributing the work as a whole. > > The GPL just can't apply to the BSDL licensed material because the > BSDL doesn't grant sublicensing rights you idiot.
Again: as opposed to patents, copyright applies to rights connected with physical copies. The BSDL grants permission to distribute physical copies with derived contents, as long as the conditions of the BSDL are met. Distributing such a copy under the GPL meets the conditions of some BSDL style licenses. There is no sublicensing of the original copy involved here, since obviously we are not talking about the original physical copy. We are talking about the creation and distribution of copies with derived content, under conditions permitted by the BSDL style license attached to the original copy. Do you get it now? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
