|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp schrieb:
> Licensing (including eg. the MIT license) is based on copyright. Thus
> if you want to license something, you have to own its copyright.
No. It perfectly suffices to own a license that grants the right to
"sub-license" the work.
Note that licensing is a legal construct to (non-exclusively) grant
rights, not deny them. Copyright, on the other hand, is a legal
construct for denial.
> If one could re-copyright PD works, then anyone could take such a work
> and hijack its copyrights for himself, stopping anyone from using it.
It's not re-copyrighting - it's re-licensing.
Though I guess you might be right in that a license to use a work,
granted by a person owning all rights to that work solely due to its PD
status in their home country, might be considered null and void in a
country where the concept of PD doesn't exist in the first place.
Then again, I deem it unlikely that anyone would sue you for using that
work...
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |