<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/11/2014 11:49 AM, Lawrence Rosen
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:0ddb01cfcdd7$fe506ca0$faf145e0$@rosenlaw.com"
type="cite">
<p class="MsoPlainText">Hi Pam,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p>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>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>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>IOW, sublicensing hurts. It
doesn't help anyone except an intermediary distributor who can
distribute commercial software with hidden FOSS components.</p>
</blockquote>
I agree completely that it is not in the best interest of FOSS
projects to encourage or allow sublicensing, which I believe is why
the GPL took the position that it is a direct license. My
recollection is, too, that until the GPL came along, the common
perception was that the correct vehicle for serial downstream
distribution was through sublicensing, which is why the earlier
licenses specifically allowed for it--but I'm sure you have more
historical knowledge of that than me. And I'll guess we have all
encountered those who, less versed in FOSS, continue to have the
misunderstanding that it works as a matter of sublicensing, not
direct licensing.<br>
<br>
And you nailed on the head who it helps, who I suspect are all over
the distinction.<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">Pamela S. Chestek, Esq.<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
PO Box 2492<br>
Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
919-800-8033<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
PGP key 246A430A</div>
</body>
</html>