On 19 April 2011 01:27, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: Where? The only reference I see to "sublicense" is "You may not sublicense > the Work." > > See my earlier remarks. 4(b) permits the distribution (amongst other things) of a Derivative Work under a licence (which might not be a CC licence) other than the one under which the Work was licensed. i.e. Y licenses rather than X (using our original terminology) which makes it a sublicence - though it is not called that.
Y can't license a work to which Y doesn't own the copyright, unless Y has > permission to sublicense the work. And CC-BY-SA specifically disallows > sublicensing. > We can agree to disagree on this perhaps. I'm confident that I could persuade a judge that a licence given by Y is binding on Y. As a general rule though I may not give what I do not have, I may licence the use of that which I do not have the power to licence and that licence, though not valid against the real owner is valid against me. Its a feature of relativity of title and/or estoppel. I don't know what your jurisdiction is, so it may be you don't have those concepts there. But its probably not worth the time arguing over it. -- Francis Davey
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
