Changeset - bdddb68089ed
[Not reviewed]
0 1 0
enyst - 9 years ago 2015-04-03 03:06:38
engel.nyst@gmail.com
Add footnote on automatic licensing provision.

There is a widespread assumption in free licensing work that
permissions come from the copyright holders -always-. This
assumption is not unwarranted; among other reasons, because there
is a 'fundamental distinction in copyright law' (Nimmer) between
material object and intellectual content. Even if the distribution
chain would give rights (which is not the perception in free licensing),
and even if someone on this chain would lose their rights (terminated),
downstream (also) has the license from the (c) holder to get their rights
from as long as they fulfill the conditions themselves.

Signed-off-by: enyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>
1 file changed with 13 insertions and 1 deletions:
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)
gpl-lgpl.tex
Show inline comments
...
 
@@ -2295,7 +2295,19 @@ violation\footnote{\label{German-reinstatement-footnote} While this is legally t
 
  upstream could make it effectively impossible for a downstream party to
 
  engage in a commercial redistribution pursuant to
 
  \hyperref[GPLv2s3]{GPLv2~\S3(a--b)}.  (\S~\ref{upstream} in the Compliance
 
  Guide portion of this tutorial discussed related details.)}.
 
  Guide portion of this tutorial discussed related details.)}\footnote{In the larger
 
  Free Software community, it is generally understood that the copyright permissions
 
  of downstream parties are valid regardless whether someone on their distribution
 
  chain may have lost their license, because their permissions come from the copyright
 
  holder, and the license text grants those permissions (as long as one complies with
 
  its conditions). From this perspective, the GPL's ``automatic downstream licensing''
 
  provision is a restatement or reinforcement of that obvious rule, not a new or
 
  specific clause. This intuition is valuable and one can argue it is not unwarranted,
 
  because, among others, there is a fundamental distinction in US copyright law between
 
  material object (the copy) and the intellectual content (the work): the physical ``source''
 
  from where the downstream licensee got the copy doesn't preclude that they get a license
 
  to the content from the copyright holder(s), i.e. the permissions under certain conditions
 
  as spelled out in the text.}.
 
Downstream's
 
licensed rights are not dependent on compliance of their upstream, because
 
their licenses issue directly from the copyright holder.  Second, automatic
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)