Automatic GPL termination

[Philippe Verdy]

> De : Alexander Terekhov [mailto:alexander.terekhov at gmail.com]
> 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.

No. Evers can't change Tinker's licensing terms other than by providing a
direct licence for Tinker's work. Evers can't sublicence the Tinker's work
even if Evers has modified it, but Evers can add its author namle and cover
the Evers' change under Evers' copyright but must distribute the
comobination using the original GPL licence without restricting it. Evers
can't remove Tinker's copyright assignment on the unmodified code, and must
state which changes were made by Evers. Other users are then free to remove
Evers changes and still use Tinker's original code under original Tinker's
GPL licence.

No sublicencing ! Tinkers does not provide any exclusive distribution right
to Evers and Evers can't claim copyright reassignment and cannot add further
restrictions even if he adds code or modifies it in his distribution.

For this reason Evers must still display the Tinker's copyright and other
susers have a legal direct licence from Tinker for that work, independently
of the Evers modifications that MUST also be licenced by the GPL (so Tinkers
can reuse the modifications made by Evers under the same initial GPL terms).

The GPL ius so build to explicitly forbid sublicencing. Sublicencing is not
part of the rights granted by Tinkers, so Evers can't sublicence Tinkers
work and can't incorporate extra proprietary components in Tinkers' free
code covered by the GPL. The only way for Evers to do that is by getting
from Tinkers explicit additional permissions allowing copyright reassignment
or restriction for the intended modifications to be distributed by Evers.
Other users however will still get a direct licence from Tinkers for the
unmodified work, even if the modified work is partly covered by additional
restrictions only if Evers has received a special grant to perform such
exclusive distribution for Evers' modifications).

Under the GPL, modified works are covered by the GPL, unless otherwise
explicitly granted by the original author.

Now suppose that Evers was granted such additional permission. This means
that downstream users will receive two licences: a direct GPL licence from
Tinkers for the unmodified work, and a direct separate licence from Evers
for the modification parts. Users will have the possibility to remove the
extra proprietary components added by Evers, to then can redistribute the
modified work under original Tinkers' GPL licence terms, even if they can't
redistribute the Evers modification that are restricted by EXPLICIT signed
permission.