Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> writes: > Can you quote the BSDL's arrangement regarding sublicensing, stupid > dak?
I already quoted the BSDL with regard to the conditions under which is allows copying and modification. Those are not in conflict with licensing the resulting whole work (and it would be pretty pointless if they were). > Did you notice (from the other part of my message that you've snipped) > that under German copyright act such arrangement (that you're > hallucinating about) would be void (unwirksam) because the BSDL is a > non-exclusive license and the German copyright act reserves such > arrangements to exclusive licenses, *not* non-exclusive? > > http://www.lehrer-online.de/dyn/bin/366209-369076-1-uebertragung_von_nutzungsrechten.pdf > > "Inhabern ausschließlicher Nutzungsrechte vorbehalten > > Die Einräumung von Unternutzungsrechten ist allerdings dem Inhaber > eines ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes vorbehalten (§ 31 Abs. 3 UrhG); > einfache Nutzungsrechte berechtigen demgegenüber nicht zur Einräumung > von Unternutzungsrechten." So where is the problem? It says that giving somebody "right to use" is not tantamount with giving him automatic right to sublicense. But nobody said that it was. The permission to relicense works based on BSDL has to be given explicitly. The BSDL spells out what conditions are sufficient for modification and redistribution. Those conditions do not prohibit adding additional conditions for further redistribution and copying of new portions, even when those cover the resulting whole. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
