3 ms·
> Only the copyright owner can sublicense If that were true, then the distribution of OSS would be illegal. If I contribute to an open source project, I have
by KPGv2 2y ago
> Only the copyright owner can sublicense
If that were true, then the distribution of OSS would be illegal.
If I contribute to an open source project, I have licensed my code to that project. If someone downloads that project, the OSS project has sublicensed my code to them.
I doubt there's a CLA in the world that doesn't grant the right to sublicense.
For example, here is the CLA for VS Code: https://opensource.microsoft.com/pdf/microsoft-contribution-license-agreement.pdf https://opensource.microsoft.com/pdf/microsoft-contribution-...
the key bit is:
> You grant Microsoft . . . a . . . license . . . to sublicense any or all of the foregoing rights to third parties
- matheusmoreira 2y agoI probably used the wrong word. I intended to say "release the software to someone else under a different license". If you own the copyrights, you can release code to the general public under AGPLv3 and simultaneously allow some specific third party to use the software under completely different terms. Other people can't do that, they are stuck with AGPLv3. Not a lawyer so I could be terribly mistaken about all this. Hopefully someone will tell me if I'm talking nonsense.
- tzs 2y agoGPLv3 says that you cannot sublicense. It says that it is not necessary because of section 10 of the license, which says that "Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License".