Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 04:27:42PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > We have an "owner" who authored the software and holds the copypright > > for something distributed under GPL, and a "copier" who has made a > > copy of it. > > Usually, what you're calling the owner is called the "author". Why > choose different terminology, here?
Because copyright rights can be transferred, and it's the current owner who has the rights and the power to make a grant of permission, not the author. > > The owner hasn't gotten any "consideration", and therefore he hasn't > > bound himself by contract, so the copier can't sue the owner. But so > > what? What would he sue FOR? > > That's an interesting claim. It's not a claim, it's a question. Thomas
