John Hasler wrote:
Hyman Rosen writes:
There is no need for a signed license in the absence of a
conflicting transfer.
It is not at all clear that the GPL is not a signed license in the
broad sense in which judges often interpret "signed". "Signed
written document" does not necessarily mean a quill pen scratching
on parchment. It merely implies an individual's explicit agreement
to a set of terms recorded in a permanent medium.
You're missing the point. The GPL's goal is to purportedly replicate
licenses "downstream" to all third parties. It is not possible for the
holder of a non-exclusive license (a non-owner) to grant a *new*
license downstream. You can't license what you don't own. Only the
*owner* of copyright may *authorize* permissions.
Sincerely,
Rjack
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
