Re: Questions about legal theory behind (L)GPL
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 02:09:09PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> The GPL isn't law, and its characterization of what's happening under
> law when you distribute a modified work is pretty bogus. (The
> recipient "automatically receives"?)
The GPL is a license document, and "automatically receives" is a
license grant. The GPL doesn't need to be law to grant license --
granting license is what copyright licenses do.
The only thing needed to make sense of section 6 for the case where
there are multiple copyright holders is recognition of "the original
licensor" and "the recipient" both apply under the scope of section 6's
"Each time". Since the terms are the same, regardless of the copyright
holder and regardless of the recipient, there is no ambiguity here.