www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject RE: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Date Wed, 29 May 2013 01:08:03 GMT
Sam Ruby wrote:
> Our license was intentionally written to be sublicensable.  
> We have licencees who have chosen to make use of our code based on this provision.

Quite so. And my own licenses also were written to be sublicenseable based on my understanding
of FOSS requirements in those days. [1]

But the fact remains that many IP licenses nowadays are not sublicenseable. They flow directly
from the IP owner to each and every user. This is intentional, so as to eliminate issues of
privity of contract that bedevil IP enforcement. So get used to not getting what you think
you need -- but getting everything that you (and our users!) actually need.


[1] I wrote about sublicensing starting on page 87 of my book, where I noted that the BSD
license is NOT sublicenseable. :-)  See http://rosenlaw.com/pdf-files/Rosen_Ch05.pdf. 

To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message