copyright
Re-licensing liability of a work?
<p>Assume a person licences a work to the world as of the terms of a licence O . Basically anyone can use the work but must obey terms O . A person takes it and licences it to third person under the terms L which being violate O .</p>
<p>Now this other person uses this work commercially without knowing it was actually infringing the actual copyright holder's copyright . Which of the two is liable for infringement and will this another be forced to follow terms of O even if it causes huge loss ? For example someone licences LGPL-licenced work to another person under MIT licence who makes a billion dollar closed source software out of it . Will he be forced to follow LGPL and release source code or refund all sales ?</p>

<p>The origin of a lawsuit will not be a license, but copyright law. Licenses are exemptions from copyright law enforcement. The original author holds the copyright. That person did offer a license O to the third party, but that third party did not take up that offer.</p>
<p>Hence, there is a copyright violation, and a cause for a lawsuit. It is up to the original author what might be demanded there, but the usual demand is such suits is for damages. However, it is common practice to settle the case amicably outside the courts by agreeing to the original license O, although this may come with undisclosed extra terms.</p>
<p>The problem with a lawsuit is that enforcement of the original license offer O is hard, because copyright law generally does not cover such licensing.</p>
<p>The license terms L are mostly irrelevant as that person is not a copyright owner so there is nothing to be licensed.</p>

<p>So A released the work under license O, B took a copy and purported to re-release it under license L, which is not compatible with O, and C used it commercially under the terms of L, apparently unaware that B did not have authority to release it under L.</p>
<p>B has infringed A's copyright by releasing under L without permission or authority. C has also infringed A's copyright by using it without a valid license to do so.</p>
<p>A could sue either B or C or both for infringement. What damages A might receive would depend on the detailed facts, and on the country where suit was brought. While the basics of copyright law are similar in most countries, procedure in copyright suits and damage amounts can vary widely. Often a suit may be legally brought in any of several countries: Where A lives, where B or C lives, or anywhere that the work was unlawfully distributed.</p>
<p>If the suit were in the US, A might get statutory damages against B for wilful infringement, which can be up to $150,000, bu8t could be much less, as the court thinks just. Or dmages could be measured by any profit B made, plus any loss A suffered because of B's actions.</p>
<p>In a US suit against C, A could possibly collect as damages all the profits C made from the work, plus any loss by A from C's actions. However, if C can show that it was reasonable, under the circumstances, for C to believe that C's use was lawful under a valid license, and that C did in fact think that, C might be classed as an &quot;innocent infringer&quot; and assessed damages as small as $200. Much will depend on the exact facts proved and the attitude of the court.</p>
<p>It would be likely for A and C to attempt to agree on a settlement , which could be for any amount or formula that they both accept. Particularly if C wants to keep using the wok, some agreement with A will be needed.</p>
