Automatic GPL termination

[Chris Travers]

On 9/12/07, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> Removal of permissions granted in the original GPL is NOT permitted. Only
> the additional permissions (that are not part of the original GPL) are
> granted.



Understood, but not relevant to my question.   My question was simply:  Is
this sublicensing?  It is clearly not, as John Cowan suggested merely a
matter of adding encumbering copyrights.

The basic issue is this:  If Evers removes the license exceptions from
Tinker's code without modifying it, and thus reverts this back to the
original GPL, who does the downstream user get the rights from and what do
these rights entail?  If the rights come from Evers this is sublicensing.

If the rights come from Tinker, shouldn't all of Tinker's permissions remain
intact?

Now, if as you have pointed out, non-exclusive licenses generally do not
include the right to sublicense by default, then does this mean that the BSD
License is now incompatible with the GPL3?

Note that the GPL2 does not allow for this sort of license modification
without copyrightable additions, hence it is what I plan to keep my own
projects on.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070912/4174b4de/attachment.html>