[Free-sklyarov-uk] a win for sanity! and free speech

[Jim Peters]

Julian T. J. Midgley wrote:
> The Softman v. Adobe case basically says "you can have copyright, or
> you can have end-user licence agreements, but you can't have both".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that you
needed to be the copyright holder in order to grant a licence.

Or is there some other form of legally-recognised ownership indication
that gives you the right to grant licences without involving
copyright ?

I'm slightly confused.

Jim

-- 
 Jim Peters                  (_)/=\~/_(_)                        Uazú
                          (_)  /=\  ~/_  (_)
 jim@                  (_)    /=\    ~/_    (_)                  www.
 uazu.net           (_) ____ /=\ ____ ~/_ ____ (_)           uazu.net