gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GPL misappropriation


From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: GPL misappropriation
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:10:47 -0000
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> >> > Dak boy is having a problem understanding § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__35.html
>> >> > (§ 35 Einräumung weiterer Nutzungsrechte)
>> >> >
>> >> > "(1) Der Inhaber eines ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechts kann weitere
>> >> > Nutzungsrechte nur mit Zustimmung des Urhebers einräumen. "
>> >>
>> >> "additional usage rights".  And the "Urheber" (author) has in the case
>> >> in question granted his "Zustimmung", given certain conditions.
>> >
>> > Uh idiot dak.
>> >
>> > It says that EXCLUSIVE licensee can sublicense ONLY if (iff) the author
>> > gives consent to sublicense.
>> 
>> Yes, we got that (it contradicts your first quote, but then it would
>> seem that the authority of the second is better).
>
> § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG doesn't contradict
> http://medien-internet-und-recht.de/volltext.php?mir_dok_id=1715 (LG
> Köln, Beschluss vom 09.04.2008 - Az. 28 O 690/07), silly dak.

Your _first_ quote.  Not your next to last one.

>> But you are still barking up the wrong tree.  What you claim is that
>> the author can't explicitly grant a non-exclusive licensee the right
>> to sublicense.
>
> That's true, according to § 31 Abs. 3 i.V.m. § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG,
> you retard.

Not at all.  Again you are confusing _implicit__ grants with the
_possibility_ to _explicitly_ grant rights to sublicense.

It seems like understanding something simple as that does not come to
you as easily as shouting insults.  Though to be fair: it's been a long
time since you came up with variety in that department either.

-- 
David Kastrup


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]