BSDL/GPL v3 compatibility

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 9/3/07, Chris Travers <chris.travers at gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> BTW, I did ask Eben Moglen this question and he seemed to think that
> sublicensing was required to use BSDL code in GPL3 applications, but when I

http://www.eapdlaw.com/newsstand/detail.aspx?news=9

"Licensees who are granted non-exclusive licenses generally do not
receive the right to grant sublicenses, in part because the potential
sublicensee can obtain a direct license from the licensor. In fact, it
is generally held that a non-exclusive patent licensee cannot grant
sublicenses unless it is expressly granted such right. However,
exclusive licenses commonly include a right to sublicense, at least
with the consent of the licensor."

http://www.coolcopyright.com/cases/fulltext/bridgeportdimensiontext.htm

"See  Leicester v. Warner Bros., 47 U.S.P.Q.2d 1501, 1998 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 8366 (C.D. Cal. 1998), aff'd, 232 F.3d 1212 (2d Cir. 2000). In
Leicester,  [**18]  a real estate developer employed an artist to
create sculptural elements for inclusion in the courtyard of a
building under construction in Los Angeles. The artist granted the
owner the exclusive right to make three-dimensional copies of the
work, and a non-exclusive right to make two-dimensional or pictorial
copies. The developer allowed a motion picture company to film the
sculptural elements as part of a movie. The artist sued the motion
picture company, claiming infringement, on the grounds that the
developer did not have the right to sub-license his non-exclusive
right to make two-dimensional or pictorial copies. During the course
of the litigation, the developer was granted a "sub-license" by the
building's architect, who the court found to be a co-owner with the
artist of some of the elements. The court found that the architect
could not grant a sub-license to the developer because a non-exclusive
license could not be sub-licensed. Id. at *17, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
8366. "

Hmmm.

regards,
alexander.