Re: GPL misappropriation

[RJack]

David Kastrup wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote: [...]
> > > BSDL licensed material does not restrict sublicensing to 
> > > identical terms.
> > It doesn't permit sublicensing at all you retard dak.
> >
> > http://books.google.de/books?id=OCGsutgMdPIC&pg=SA4-PA42&lpg=SA4-PA42&dq=sublicensing+explicit+grant&source=bl&ots=JRQwZdnHUl&sig=0b5RXRLLp2OXrNixaZ502i6Sd8Q&hl=de&ei=So6oS47SHqT20wStr_XrDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=sublicensing%20explicit%20grant&f=false
> >  (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 
> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions 
> are met:
>
> 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright 
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>
> 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>  notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the 
> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>
> Note that nothing is being said about adding conditions, or 
> distributing with a more restrictive set of conditions.

Unfortunately DAK your lack of understanding of the English language
involving the use of the word "exclusive" in:

"§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works.
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:. . ."

leaves you incapable of understanding that under U.S. copyright law
the term 'sublicense" can mean "transfer of ownership" or "transfer of
contractual interest". There is *no* exclusive right for an owner to
authorize someone who is not the owner of a copyright to "license" a
work again. (It wouldn't be an exclusive right would it?)


It-just-ain't-gonna-happen. Nada, nope, zilch, not, nein!!!!!!

Sincerely,
RJack :)