Subject: Re: question about bsd-style license requirements - accidental recipr ocity?
From: John Cowan <>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:59:40 -0400

Lawrence Rosen scripsit:

> Please let me clarify. Sublicensing doesn't necessarily mean you can change
> all the terms of your license or choose any license you want. It doesn't
> allow you to distribute someone else's "sublicenseable" original software
> under new licenses that *contradict* the terms of the original license. 

Sorry, Larry.  I knew that, but forgot to actually say it.

> The main value of sublicensing is that the sublicensee (an end user,
> typically) can rely on the license under which he receives his software and
> doesn't need to look for or investigate the original licenses for each
> component. 

Well, that's one value.  Another is the one I mentioned, that a more
restrictive license can be placed on a component by a sublicensor.

John Cowan
"The exception proves the rule."  Dimbulbs think: "Your counterexample proves
my theory."  Latin students think "'Probat' means 'tests': the exception puts
the rule to the proof."  But legal historians know it means "Evidence for an
exception is evidence of the existence of a rule in cases not excepted from."