OVPL - wrap-up of objections

[Alex Bligh]

--On 22 July 2005 10:44 +0100 Alex Bligh <alex at alex.org.uk> wrote:

> You will note that the only difference in the license grant is that
> the 3.3 grant is perpetual, irrevocable and sub-licensable. These are
> insufficient to make it into an assignment, because it is non-exclusive.

I forgot to quote 17 USC 101 (Definitions):

	A “transfer of copyright ownership” is an assignment, mortgage,
	exclusive license, or any other conveyance, alienation, or
	hypothecation of a copyright or of any of the exclusive rights
	comprised in a copyright, whether or not it is limited in time or
	place of effect, but not including a nonexclusive license.

IE non-exclusive licenses are specifically EXCLUDED from falling within
provisions of 17 USC which deal with transfer of copyright ownership.

As I said, I am more familiar with UK law than US, but I would have thought
that squarely put the 3.3 license (specifically non-exclusive) outside
the scope of 17 USC 204(a).

Alex