licensor

Once the user has received the code from the licensor, legally the situation is out of the licensor's hands _except for the issue of redistribution_, which is what the GPL restricts.

So then HBO has to take over all the local marketing that each licensor was doing for them.

An exclusive license is a transfer of those rights under copyright to which it is exclusive from the licensor to the licensee.

You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

The complexity of the plug-in system, and the incredibly varied effects it has on customer deployments, has become untenable for the licensor (apparently).

This would make licenses beholden to not report the licensor for criminal activities.

Since allowing the licensor to revoke the licence would be an extra condition.

Except: the original licensor sued his american licensee for continued royalty payments.

It is in fact a contract, that, if breached, leaves the licensor without a copyright license (causing both infringement of copyright and breach of contract).

If software is licensed under the BSD without forming a contract between licensor and licensee, the extent of any patent grant is at best ambiguous.

In fact, it's a relicensing allowed by MPL 2.0 licensor.

Real licenses are more than one sentence long because there are real issues that both licensor and licensee need to understand before they can go forward.

Essentially, it enabled potential and current licensees to preemptively sue the licensor for "Declaratory Judgment".

Licensing discussions often begin with the potential licensor saying "sue me", or these days, outright suing you first with a Declaratory Judgement.

MPL 2.0 still keeps an option for the licensor's software to never be relicensed, but they have to specifically use an "incompatibility" clause.

It doesn't say the "licensor" will not do something nor does it say that the "licensee" can't do something.