<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoPlainText>Hi Pam,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>You raise a good point. Why would we encourage sublicensing then, if there is no privity by which to enforce the covenants in the FOSS license?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>FOSS licenses are direct from the copyright owner to the ultimate licensee. For example, GPLv3 § 10 expressly avoids sublicensing: "Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives <u>a license from the original licensors</u>, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License." [Emphasis added.]<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>That give the licensor all the privity he needs to enforce his license against each and every licensee. No intermediary commercial distributor can then interfere with the freedoms or the obligations (conditions or covenants) associated with that license.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>IOW, sublicensing hurts. It doesn't help anyone except an intermediary distributor who can distribute commercial software with hidden FOSS components.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>/Larry<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>-----Original Message-----<br>From: Pamela Chestek [mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com] <br>Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 6:22 AM<br>To: license-review@opensource.org<br>Subject: Re: [License-review] Sublicensing</p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Changing subject line ...<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>On 9/9/2014 5:04 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> Once we agree on those basic principles, then it is fair to ask <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> whether "sublicensing" actually provides anything different or whether <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> it is an ancient commercial licensing word that was thrown into the <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> MIT and other licenses among the 17 USC 106 "copyright rights"<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> actually being licensed for no important purpose.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>I believe the difference will be whether the downstream recipient is obliged to satisfy the covenants of the license versus the conditions.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>One can only sublicense the rights one has, so if the original grant has conditions on the grant, then the sublicensee will also be obliged to satisfy the same conditions. However, to the extent the license has covenants, those are a creature of contract only, and since there is no privity between the original licensor and sublicensee, the sublicensee wouldn't be obliged to satisfy the covenants.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Pam<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Pamela S. Chestek, Esq.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Chestek Legal<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>PO Box 2492<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Raleigh, NC 27602<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>919-800-8033<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>pamela@chesteklegal.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a href="http://www.chesteklegal.com"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>www.chesteklegal.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>PGP key 246A430A<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>License-review mailing list<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>License-review@opensource.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a href="http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</span></a><o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>