Subject: Re: AFL - non-sublicenseable versus distributable
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:21:34 -0700

Quoting dlw (danw6144@insightbb.com):

> In order to sublicense a work you must have some ownership right
> in the underlying copyrighted work.  You must be either the copyright
> owner or an exclusive licensee with permission of  the owner see
> Nike v. Gardner, 279 F. 3d 774 (9th Cir. 2002).
> 
> A non-exclusive licensee *cannot* sublicense a copyrighted work.
> This is the old "doctrine of indivisibility".  See Nike v. Gardner above.
> This is one reason *nonexclusive* license schemes like the GPL are invalid.

It suffices to note a faulty premise:  Use of copyright licences doesn't
appear to entail sublicensing.

(Mr. Wallace appears to crank these things out, on average, about every
2-3 months, I notice.  One wonders what that cycle correlates with.)

-- 
Cheers,
Rick Moen                      Linux for Intel:  Party like it's 2037!
rick@linuxmafia.com