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