Concurrent Licenses?

[Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.]

I have noticed this A to B to C argument before, but I am uncertain whether
it is applicable if the GPL has a strong copyleft provision. The GNU GPL is
better viewed as A to B; A to B/C; A to C; A to D; and so on. If you keep in
mind that the GNU GPL's purpose is to recapture copyright in instances where
the public domain could not, then you should be better able to focus on why
A is the only party who may bring suit if the GPL is violated. This fact
changes dramatically under open source public licenses that do not have a
strong copyleft. Indeed, your example, generally,  is correct for GPLs with
no copyleft.

Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
www.cyberspaces.org
rod at cyberspaces.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: W. Yip [mailto:weng at yours.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 10:28 AM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Concurrent Licenses?
>
>
> What do you think of the following excerpt from a paper I am writing?
>
> I am not very confident about this my argument of concurrent licenses, as
> where
>
> A licenses to B licenses to C [under GPL]
>
> In such a case, C receives the GPL from B (s.1+2 GPL) as well as A (s.6
> GPL).
>
> Do these licenses pertain to the relevant bits of the work? For instance,
> s.1 +2 gives license to A's source code base, while s.6 gives license to
> B's derivative 'bits'? Or are they the same license?
>
> (Quote begins)-------
> Upon (re)distribution, the GPL issues from two sources. Firstly, the
> distributor will issue the license to the distributee [1]. This
> 'distributor' may either be (i) the copyright holder as original licensor,
> or (ii) a licensee making a sublicense pursuant to redistribution. This
> results in a seemingly unbreakable 'chain of licenses', since the
> pre-condition to permitted distribution is the obligation to
> adopt the same
> GPL.
>
> Second, a recipient distributee will also receive a license
> 'automatically'
> from the original licensor who is the copyright holder [2]. It is unclear
> whether such 'a license from the original licensor' is the GPL, but it is
> submitted that it is an equivalent, because it offers the same permissions
> '...to copy, distribute or modify...subject to (the GPL) terms and
> conditions.' [3] As a result, any recipient of software under the GPL will
> have received a license from (i) his immediate distributor and (ii) the
> copyright holder (original licensor). The latter seems a weaker license
> because there is an absence of any bilateral dealing.
>
> [1] ss.1 and 2 GPL
> [2] s.6 GPL
> [3] s.6 GPL
>
> (Quote ends)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>