0

I would answer the question with yes. Because:

First licensor A gives B software under opensource license. A wants to have anything to do with it anymore and is not permitted to revoke. B distributes and continues licensing.

GPL v2 states that distributor needs to provide binary and source code under a GPL v2. I.e. he reapplieds GPL v2 to code.

What is your view?

Ulrich
  • 21
  • 4
    Does this question stand alone, in your mind, or is it the precursor to a question that starts "And since B is/isn't a licensor..."; in other words, why do you ask? Also, do you mean "A wants to have nothing* to do with it*"? And finally, since this may turn out to be licence-dependent (as lots of things do), could you specify one or two licences that you're particularly interested in? – MadHatter Mar 10 '22 at 06:57

2 Answers2

5

The answer really depends on the license terms. There are massive differences.

In GPL v3, for example, there is clause 10 which says "Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License." This clearly indicates that if you just distribute unmodified source code, then the recipient will have the license from the original licensor.

In the European Union Public License (EUPL-1.2) you will find the definition of 'Licensor' to state "‘The Licensor’: the natural or legal person that distributes or communicates the Work under the Licence." So here, by virtue of distributing source code under the license, you become the licensor.

There are other FOSS licenses, which are silent about this point, or give both options, such as the MIT license, which provides (among others) the rights to "...publish, distribute, sublicense...", my reading in the case of publish and distribute is that you do not become licensor just by distributing the unmodified code, however when you sublicense it it is obvious that you are.

Martin_in_AUT
  • 7,205
  • 10
  • 37
1

Does every distributor of unchanged opensource software become a licensor?

No. Only people with a copyright claim on the software can become licensors and if you distribute the software unchanged, as you received it from someone else, you do not have a copyright claim on the software.

However, by giving licensees the right to re-distribute your software, you are also giving them the right (or even the obligation in case of a copyleft license) to extend your license to the people that they distribute to.

So, by distributing software under an open-source license, you are licensing that software to every future recipient, regardless of the channel through which they receive the software and regardless of what changes of heart you might have.

Bart van Ingen Schenau
  • 29,549
  • 3
  • 46
  • 83
  • 2
    I believe there is no 'generic answer' with Yes or No to the question. It really depends on the license. Your answer seems somehow right for GPLv2, which includes the sentence "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions.", but for other licenses it may be very different. – Martin_in_AUT Mar 11 '22 at 10:59