Rjack wrote:
Now which of those six enumerated rights gives the copyright owner
> the exclusive right to authorize third parties "to authorize"?
Who is trying to "authorize to authorize", that your question would be relevant?
Who gives a rat's ass about source code that is immutable and can't be copied, modified and distributed? 17 USC sec. 205(e) clearly states the GPL license isn't "perpetual" since it's an *unsigned* license.
17 USC 205(e) deals with conflicting transfers. There is no need for a signed license in the absence of a conflicting transfer. GPLv3 is perpetual because it says so, except for the author's 17 USC 203 termination rights, which cannot be disclaimed.
Huh? Might be? MIGHT BE???????????????????????????
Yes. Might be. The notion of open licenses that allow downstream copying and distribution of copyrighted works provided certain conditions are met wasn't widespread when this law was written. Judges have a habit of applying common sense interpretations to circumstances. Your favorite but invalidly applied legal premise of promissory estoppel may be relevant too. At this point, I think the only safe conclusion is that no one knows what would happen. We know what you would like to happen, but that doesn't matter. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss