Automatic GPL termination

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 9/13/07, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Here ag€ain, CeCILl does not define the operation as "sublicensing".

It doesn't use that word. But then nor does it use "licensing" word.
So what? In CeCILL speak,

Licensor: means the Holder, or any other individual or legal entity,
who *distributes* the Software under the Agreement.

The Licensee can include a code that is subject to the provisions of
one of the versions of the GNU GPL in the Modified or unmodified
Software, and *distribute* that entire code under the terms of the
same version of the GNU GPL.

The Licensee can include the Modified or unmodified Software in a code
that is subject to the provisions of one of the versions of the GNU
GPL, and *distribute* that entire code under the terms of the same
version of the GNU GPL.

both "licensing" and "sublicensing" is labeled as "distribute".

> There's no reassignment of the right holder, so this is not sublicencing.

------
The licensee may sign a sublicense agreement if the right holder has
given his consent in the licensing agreement. In a sublicense
agreement, the roles are reversed: the licensee of the primary
agreement becomes the licensor in the sublicensing agreement, granting
rights to the sublicensee. The scope of the sublicense cannot exceed
the scope of the license agreement. For example, if the licensee is
authorized only to make and sell patented products, he cannot
authorize the sublicensee to import the patented products.
------

See also

http://www.chin.gc.ca/English/Intellectual_Property/Economic_Models/applicable_law.html#Sublicensing

regards,
alexander.

--
"PJ points out that lawyers seem to have difficulty understanding the
GPL. My main concern with GPLv3 is that - unlike v2 - non-lawyers can't
understand it either."
                                      -- Anonymous Groklaw Visitor