RJack <u...@example.net> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> writes: >> >>> David Kastrup wrote: [...] >>>> BSDL licensed material does not restrict sublicensing to identical >>>> terms. >>> >>> "Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights, no right to >>> sublicense is generally presumed.5 ... 5 Raufast SA v. Kniers >>> Pizzazz, Ltd., 208 USPQ (BNA) 699 (EDNY 1980). " >> >> What about "Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights" do you >> not understand? > > Unfortunately DAK your lack of understanding of the English language > involving the use of the word "exclusive" in: > > "ยง 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works. > Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this > title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the > following:. . ."
What about "and to authorize" did you not understand? > leaves you incapable of understanding that under U.S. copyright law > the term 'sublicense" can mean "transfer of ownership" or "transfer of > contractual interest". There is *no* exclusive right for an owner to > authorize someone who is not the owner of a copyright to "license" a > work again. (It wouldn't be an exclusive right would it?) You are confused. If I am the owner of a horse, I can authorize someone else to sell it, even though ownership gives _me_ the exclusive right. The whole point of authorization is to enable someone to act in one's behalf. > It-just-ain't-gonna-happen. Nada, nope, zilch, not, nein!!!!!! Just because you pretend not to understand common concepts your absurd protestations do not gain any plausibility. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss