Re: [xml] The MIT License -> GPL?

[Bjorn Reese <breese mail1 stofanet dk>]

On Sat, 2004-08-07 at 00:08, Daniel Veillard wrote:

>   Sublicence is not relicencing. You cannot do this, well I don't think so,

I can confirm this. Only the copyright holder(s) can change the license.

Sublicensing is a different thing; it has to do with liability.

To quote Larry Rosen (legal counsel of the Open Source Initiative)

 "This points out one of the confusing aspects of different open source
  licenses.

  Some licenses are sublicenseable, meaning that the distributor has
  been given the right to offer licenses directly from the distributor
  to the licensee.

  Other licenses are non-sublicenseable, meaning that a license passes
  directly from the original author/licensor to the licensee, even
  though the distributor handles the distribution and exchange of the
  software.

  [...]

  When you obtain software from a computer store, there is not an
  in-person transaction between the original author/licensor and you.
  Nevertheless, you have received a license to which you must assent (in
  those cases a shrink-wrap license).  The licensor and the licensee can
  sue each other over the license without interference by the
  distributor, even though the licensor and licensee have never dealt
  directly with each other."

While we are at it, sublicensing is not without problems. Consider the
following two quotes.

Manesh Pai (an Indian lawyer)

 "By excluding sub-licensing, and permitting re-distribution, the
  developer ensures that there is no privity between himself and the end
  user.  And yes, if the developer permits sub-license, the distributor
  becomes an agent of the developer, and hence the developer becomes
  liable to the user, even in absense of direct contact between them."

Larry Rosen

 "It is best for open source licenses not to be sublicenseable."

Liability is not resolved solely on the relationship between the
licensor and the licensee as mentioned above (called the principle of
privity), but also on payment (called the principle of consideration),
monetary or otherwise. However, it never hurts to be on the safe side,
so I usually follow Larry's advice in my own work.

Well, getting back to the original question, sublicensing has nothing
to do with re-licensing.

PS: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.