[License-review] Sublicensing

[Jim Wright]

Good question, and I can't answer for the FSF obviously.  The GPLv2 does not contain the same proviso for additional permissions that the GPLv3 has, but perhaps I'm alone in the wilderness in wondering if the words "under the terms of this License" would really be read as "under terms at least as permissive as those of this License" for v2.  Perhaps I haven't thought this through sufficiently.  But in my mind, by the plain english, these concepts are not at all the same, and therefore convincing a judge they are seems an uphill battle to me.  But who knows what one may say someday - I do not presume to know the answer, and in any event, for the purpose of the UPL, as I said, the discussion is academic - the UPL was written to accommodate different licensing patterns as flexibly as possible, and that is deliberate.  (Note: I still owe you that one more revision, which will follow shortly.)

 Regards,
  Jim 


On Sep 14, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Engel Nyst <engel.nyst at gmail.com> wrote:

> Just to note on this point:
> 
> On 09/12/2014 11:48 AM, Jim Wright wrote:
>> Well, it seems to me to be what allows the mechanics of copyleft
>> license compatibility to work at a fundamental level - if I cannot
>> sublicense a copy of an MIT licensed header file to a subsequent
>> recipient under the GPLv2, I don't know how I can include <snip>
> 
> Creative Commons licenses are explicitly non-sublicensable, and this
> includes CC0. According to FSF licenses compatibility list, CC0 is
> GPL-compatible.[1]
> 
> As far as copyright is concerned, I think it's obvious that CC0 code can
> be used in any FLOSS licensed or proprietary software, no matter if we
> assume that the fallback license is the legal mechanism, or public
> domain dedication.
> 
> Under your theory, I can't use CC0 fallback licensed code in GPLv2 or
> proprietary licensed software. Can you please explain that? What
> problems do you see in this case?
> 
> It gives all permissions I can think of, and no conditions whatsoever.
> It only doesn't allow this 'sublicensing' confusing (IMHO) theory to
> come into play.
> 
> [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0
> 
> -- 
> ~ "We like to think of our forums as a Free-Speech Zone. And freedom
> works best at the point of a bayonet." (Amazon, Inc.)