Move details of exclusive power to a footnote.

enyst was quite correct that more explanation was needed here about how
an entity achieves exclusive relicensing rights.  However, the details
are somewhat off-point to what the section is trying to explain, so the
details are best placed in a footnote.

I've also separated out copyright assignment from generating all of
one's own copyrights.  This may be a distinction without a difference,
but a laundry list seemed appropriate here.  Perhaps this should be
shortened in future.
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2014-09-19 18:16:02 -04:00
parent 831c21febb
commit 012aebd493

View file

@ -4322,11 +4322,15 @@ versions, and those forks that exist remain freely available.
A final common business model that is perhaps the most controversial is
proprietary relicensing of a GPL'd code base. This is only an option for
software in which a particular entity is the sole copyright holder or has
unconditional relicensing permissions. As discussed earlier in this tutorial,
a copyright holder is permitted under copyright law to license a software
system under her copyright as many different ways as she likes to as many
different parties as she wishes.
software in which a particular entity holds exclusive rights to
relicense\footnote{Entities typically hold exclusive relicensing rights
either by writing all the software under their own copyrights, collecting
copyright assignments from all contributors, or by otherwise demanding
unconditional relicensing permissions from all contributors via some legal
agreement}. As discussed earlier in this tutorial, a copyright holder is
permitted under copyright law to license a software system under her
copyright as many different ways as she likes to as many different parties as
she wishes.
Some companies use this to their
financial advantage with regard to a GPL'd code base. The standard