Re: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?

[Hyman Rosen]

Rjack wrote:
> Now which of those six enumerated rights gives the copyright owner
> the exclusive right to authorize third parties "to authorize"?

Who is trying to "authorize to authorize", that your question
would be relevant?

> Who gives a rat's ass about source code that is immutable and can't
> be copied, modified and distributed? 17 USC sec. 205(e) clearly states
> the GPL license isn't "perpetual" since it's an *unsigned* license.

17 USC 205(e) deals with conflicting transfers. There is no need for
a signed license in the absence of a conflicting transfer. GPLv3 is
perpetual because it says so, except for the author's 17 USC 203
termination rights, which cannot be disclaimed.

> Huh? Might be? MIGHT BE???????????????????????????

Yes. Might be. The notion of open licenses that allow downstream
copying and distribution of copyrighted works provided certain
conditions are met wasn't widespread when this law was written.
Judges have a habit of applying common sense interpretations to
circumstances. Your favorite but invalidly applied legal premise
of promissory estoppel may be relevant too. At this point, I think
the only safe conclusion is that no one knows what would happen.

We know what you would like to happen, but that doesn't matter.