[vox-tech] Self-replacing license [was Urgent news: Linux may be relicensed]

[Micah Cowan]

Rick Moen wrote:
> Excuse me, but that's not what the clause in question says:
> 
>    In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any
>    rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is
>    presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and
>    distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective
>    work, any revision of that collective work, and any later collective
>    work in the same series.
> 
 >
> Holder of the collective-work copyright implicitly acquires a "privilege
> of reproducing and distributing".  Any change in terms for the
> collective work used for such reproduction and distribution that doesn't
> injure (in a legal sense) the interests of contributors would not create
> any actionable tort.  Of course, it might be rude and unwise, but that's
> different from being a tort.
> 
> Complications arise if contributors have explicit copyright / licence
> statements of their own -- and nobody's going to be able to successfully
> sue without registering his/her copyright claim (which hardly anyone
> does).

Umm, right, sorry. Thanks for the correction: must've had a brain fart.