Tim Smith wrote:
Suppose I create a copyrighted work. I release it under a license such
as GPLv2. You use it, in a way that requires permission of the copyright
holder, but is in accord with GPLv2, so you are OK.
Suppose now that I transfer the copyright to someone else.
Do you now have something to worry about if the copyright assignee
wishes to stop you from copying, modifying, and distributing the
software?
The GPL is meant to be a bare license, not a contract, but doesn't that
mean it provides no protection if the ownership of the work changes?
There is nothing to worry about. Courts will be presented with evidence
that it is standard industry practice to distribute software using unsigned
non-exclusive licenses, and with evidence that (in the case of the GPL) the
copyright holders intend that the license be irrevocable (as stated by the
license itself).
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=fedclaim&vol=1999/97476c>
Thus, nonexclusive licenses are explicitly removed from the 204(a)
writing requirement.
...
Under federal law, nonexclusive copyright licenses can be granted orally
or implied from conduct.
...
The existence of either an exclusive or nonexclusive license creates an
affirmative defense to a claim of copyright infringement.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
