Comment by crankylinuxuser

7 years ago

"Someone" owns the rights.

They too bought the burden of copyright violation.

That's not how asset sales work. The new copyright owner wouldn't be liable for the previous copyright owner's actions. And if the new copyright owner isn't distributing binaries that include the GPL code they haven't violated the GPL.

  • > That's not how asset sales work. The new copyright owner wouldn't be liable for the previous copyright owner's actions. And if the new copyright owner isn't distributing binaries that include the GPL code they haven't violated the GPL.

    Interesting, so even if the new copyright holder profited off of the asset, they wouldn't have to comply with the GPL? This is an interesting parallel to real estate, where the last person holding the bag has to perform environmental cleanup, etc.

    • The violation is in the distribution. If the current copyright holder distributed copies then he violated the license but more than likely they simply own the copyright to the code and other IP but haven't distributed anything.

      6 replies →

Assets do sometimes just go nowhere.

  • Especially when they're heavily encumbered assets, e.g. when they're part of a licensed game whose license expired long ago. (Like this one!)

    • Well, the license to the publisher may have, but the license from the publisher to the consumer is perpetual, and subject to the first sale doctrine.