Automatic GPL termination

Alexander Terekhov alexander.terekhov at gmail.com
Wed Sep 12 17:20:44 UTC 2007


On 9/12/07, Chris Travers <chris.travers at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 9/12/07, John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:
> > Chris Travers scripsit:
> >
> > > How else can section 7 additional permissions be removed in the GPL3
> except
> > > by sublicensing?
> >
> > Tinker writes Code and passes it to Evers under the GPLv3 with additional
> > permissions.  Evers strips the additional permissions and passes the
> > result to Chance.  This is just Evers modifying Code (as permitted by
> > the license of Code) and conveying the modified work.  Chance now has
> > a license direct from Tinker, so there is no sublicensing involved.
>
>
> That is what I thought at first until I noticed that Evers is allowed to do
> this *without* modifying code.

Even in the case of modified code, Evers copyright (if any) doesn't
cover remaining protected elements from Tinker's work and Evers just
can't change Tinker's licensing terms other than by sublicensing
Tinker's work.

regards,
alexander.

-- 
"PJ points out that lawyers seem to have difficulty understanding the
GPL. My main concern with GPLv3 is that - unlike v2 - non-lawyers can't
understand it either."
                                         -- Anonymous Groklaw Visitor



More information about the License-discuss mailing list