Tim Smith wrote:
Section 203 really doesn't have anything to do with section 205.
You expressed concern that the transfer of copyright to GPLed code from one party to another could cause problems because of 205. Now you say...
The use case for section 205 is something like this. Copyright owner A assigns his copyright on his play to party B. A few days later, A gives party C a non-exclusive license to stage a production of the play. Can C stage the play? (It depends on whether B recorded the assignment before A gave C the non-exclusive license. If B hadn't recorded, and C acted in good faith, C's non-exclusive license stands).
...which makes sense - it means the term "conflicting" in the heading <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000205----000-.html> (e) Priority Between Conflicting Transfer of Ownership and Nonexclusive License. refers to a case where the transfer and the license happen at roughly the same time, and priority must be given to one. That means it doesn't apply to licenses granted clearly before the copyright transfer, and so your worry was groundless. Section 203 allows an author to withdraw a grant, but only at times in the distant future. So do you agree that sections 203 and 205 should cause no worry to users of GPLed code? _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
