Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> > (Intellectual Property Licensing: Forms and Analysis) >> > >> > "Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights, no right to sublicense >> > is generally presumed.5 ... 5 Raufast SA v. Kniers Pizzazz, Ltd., 208 >> > USPQ (BNA) 699 (EDNY 1980). " >> >> What about "Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights" do you not >> understand? >> >> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without > > Redistribution and use in source and binary forms is NOT a grant of > sublicensing rights, you silly dak.
Redistribution is again covered by a license. Once we are talking about modified material, a licensing choice for the resulting work is made by the redistributor. Please note that your example regarding patents is utterly irrelevant, since patents are applicable when the resulting product works using the patented method, regardless how that came about. In contrast, copyright covers an actual chain of derivation. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
