Automatic GPL termination

[Chris Travers]

On 9/12/07, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > 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.



So what does section 7 of the GPL3 mean by removing additional permissions
when "conveying" the software?  How are these permissions removed?  Is this
sublicensing?  Note that conveying does not add copyrighted elements to the
software (IANAL though).


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.



So if Tinker releases his work under GPL3 + license exceptions, the GPL3
says that Evers can remove those license exceptions without adding
copyrighted elements of his own.  How does this work in the absence of
sublicensing?


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.



Understood.  Wouldn't this cover BSD/X.org licenses as well?  After all they
are non-exclusive and would thus seem to prevent sublicensing (which could
make them incompatible with the GPL3).  (The MIT License specifically allows
sublicensing and so that is a different matter.)



> 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.


How does this relate to section 7 of the GPL3 and removal of additional
permissions when the work is not modified but merely conveyed?


Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070912/dd5969dc/attachment.html>