<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<span style="white-space: pre;">> That's the consequence of the ways
we do sublicensing in open source.<br>
> Our customers need to understand that.</span><br>
<br>
What your customers need to understand is that the way open source
nonexclusive licensees “sublicense” under US law is actually a
“transfer of contractual interests” (information rights) in a physical
copy. That means the *original* licensee transfers (and relinquishes)
his contractual interests of the copy to the *new* licensee.<br>
<br>
SCO lawyer Mark Heise pointed out this fact to the Wall Street Journal
in 2004 . Eben Moglen was to busy hooting and hollering to realize that
he was making fun of a *real* lawyer. Open source advocates will live
to rue that day.<br>
<br>
A nonexclusive licensee cannot transfer the contractual interest he
receives under the GPL to “all third parties” since he relinquishes his
contractual interest with the first distribution. That’s why Heise said
copyright law allows only “one copy”. The GPL’s sec. 2(b) within it’s
four corners is an “impossible contractual term” *and * is preempted
because it attempts to redefine US law governing contractual transfers
for nonexclusive licensees.<br>
<br>
Perhaps someday open source advocates will come to understand that for
a nonexclusive licensee the term “sublicense” means “transfer of
contractual interest” in a physical copy and that the term "sublicense"
does *not* mean “to authorize” within the meaning of 17 USC sec 106.<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>