List Info

Thread: Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License




Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
user name
2007-09-16 13:33:13

17 USC § 106
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the <OWNER> of
copyright under this 
title has the <EXCLUSIVE> rights to do and to
authorize any of the 
following: . . .

17 USC § 101
A “transfer of copyright ownership” is an assignment,
mortgage, 
exclusive license, or any other conveyance, alienation, or
hypothecation 
of a copyright or of any of the exclusive rights comprised
in a 
copyright, whether or not it is limited in time or place of
effect, <NOT 
INCLUDING> a nonexclusive license.

If your don't <OWN> the copyright you <CAN'T>
license a work (§ 106).
A nonexclusive licensee can't receive any <OWNERSHIP
RIGHTS> (§ 101).
So what is a "sublicense"? You can't license what
you don't own.

It is commonly said that <PARTY A> may
"sublicense" a nonexclusive for a 
work with the consent of the copyright owner but this
requires 
contractual privity with the "owner of the
copyright" and is actually a 
"transfer" of a specific non-exclusive license
from <PARTY A> to <PARTY 
B> with permission of the <OWNER>. This means
<PARTY A> relinquishes his 
already existing license to <PARTY B>.

This is not the same thing as <PARTY A> granting a new
license to <PARTY 
B> -- only the <OWNER> of a copyright may do that
(§ 106).




Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
user name
2007-09-16 13:50:37


On 9/16/07, dlw < danw6144insightbb.com">danw6144insightbb.com> wrote:


17 USC § 106
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the <OWNER&gt; of copyright under this
title has the <EXCLUSIVE> rights to do and to authorize any of the
following: . . .

17 USC § 101
A "transfer of copyright ownership" is an assignment, mortgage,
exclusive license, or any other conveyance, alienation, or hypothecation
of a copyright or of any of the exclusive rights comprised in a
copyright, whether or not it is limited in time or place of effect, <NOT
INCLUDING&gt; a nonexclusive license.

If your don't <OWN>; the copyright you <CAN9;T> license a work (§ 106).
A nonexclusive licensee can't receive any <OWNERSHIP RIGHTS> (§ 101).
So what is a "sublicense";? You can't license what you don't own.

Actually, according to the 9th circuit, exclusive rights are not transferrable or sublicenseable either unless otherwise stated (IANAL, but see Gardner v. Nike, a case which appears to have surprised a lot of lawyers at the time).&nbsp; It seems to me that the safe thing to do is to be skeptical of *any* implied sublicense right.

Here is an example of a sublicense.  I write a book on, say Norse Mythology.  The publisher gets an exclusive copyright license which includes a sublicensing provision (avoiding questions of divisibility).  Later a magazine wants to publish an excerpt from that book. ; They contact the publisher who provides a sublicense to the magazine.&nbsp; If I, as the author don't like it, tough luck.

A similar example might come into play if a second publisher wanted to reprint the book after it was out of print.

My view here is that sublicensing does not enter into the BSD-license anyway because it is a grant by the original author to anyone who comes into posession of the software.&nbsp; The fact that it is non-exclusive is more of a supporting point than a primary one.

&nbsp;Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

RE: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
user name
2007-09-17 16:37:23
On 9/16/07, dlw <danw6144insightbb.com> wrote:
> 17 USC § 106
> Subject to sections 107 through 122, the <OWNER>
of copyright under this
> title has the <EXCLUSIVE> rights to do and to
authorize any of the
> following: . . .
>
> 17 USC § 101
> A "transfer of copyright ownership" is an
assignment, mortgage,
> exclusive license, or any other conveyance, alienation,
or hypothecation
> of a copyright or of any of the exclusive rights
comprised in a
> copyright, whether or not it is limited in time or
place of effect, <NOT 
> INCLUDING> a nonexclusive license.
>
> If your don't <OWN> the copyright you
<CAN'T> license a work (§ 106).
> A nonexclusive licensee can't receive any <OWNERSHIP
RIGHTS> (§ 101). 
> So what is a "sublicense"? You can't license
what you don't own.

Thanks for this clear legal reference (I think you can find
the same
argument within the International Convention of Bern, and
any other national
law implementing it).

Note that exclusive rights include the moral rights (that
exist for authors
residing in some countries under Civil Code instead of
Common Law) : in some
countries, they are not even transferable (and remain
exclusive for the
lifetime of the author), so they are automatically excluded
from any
licences, including after transfer of copyright (the
copyright does not
cover the moral rights anyway).

This also means that they are also excluded from
sublicencing, but also that
the required attribution is even better protected legally
than the copyright
itself : even if the copyright is transferred, the law
mandates the
preservation of author names in the modified copyright
notice.

Other exclusive rights (and obligation) that are not
transferable (and
excluded from the copyright protection and every licencing
scheme) also
include the legal responsibility of authors for some damage
they could cause
to others when making the covered work accessible to the
public through his
publication (so for example, an author remains legally
liable in his country
of residence if he publishes a covered work in any place in
any combination
that is forbidden in the laws of his country of residence,
like: apology of
Nazism or nationally recognized crimes against humanity, or
public calls for
violence, murders, other crimes, or terrorism against
physical persons or
legally protected institutions, or some national defence
secrets of his
country of residence).

This mandatory legal prohibition, which can be very broad
means that, to
protect the authors themselves, they need to publish their
names, and names
can't be changed (this means that publishing works into the
public domain
can then become legally prohibited during the life of
authors themselves,
because public domain is not a licence but does not allow
protecting authors
for forbidden uses for which an author may be legally liable
in his country,
as this type of publication would be an illegal attempt by
an author to
escape his own legal and mandatory responsibility and
liability).




[1-3]

about | contact  Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics )