On 18 April 2011 02:13, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > > Presumably they would point out that the incorrect part of your > reasoning is that "Re-distribution under a licence is sublicensing and > cannot be anything else." > > Redistribution under a license is not sublicensing. I'm not even > quite sure how you'd construe them to be the same. If I give you > permission to (re)distribute my work under a license, I am not giving > you permission to sublicense that work. >
Obviously we mean different things by "sub-license". Can you explain what you understand it to mean? If X licenses a work to Y under licence L1 and Y licences the same work to Z under licence L2 where Y's right to give L2 is given under L1 then L2 is a sublicence of L1. That is the situation you are describing. And that is (as I understand it) what "sublicence" means. -- Francis Davey _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
