www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dittert, Eric" <eric.ditt...@intel.com>
Subject RE: ASL Only Distribution Policy [was Apache's LGPL Policy]
Date Thu, 04 Aug 2005 21:27:22 GMT


From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:dan@envoisolutions.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 12:21 PM

>
>I think its ok that the derivitive definition varies between licenses.
>Thats why we define things. 
>


Dan -
Essentially, I think you are right that what it comes down to is that
the definitions or interpretations (implicit or explicit) in the two
licenses are different.  The situation is confused by the fact that in
the definitions sections of these licenses, the term "derivative work"
is not listed as a defined term.  Worse yet, each of the licenses in
their definitions uses the phrase to "derivative work under copyright
law", from which one *might* infer that when they say "derivative work"
elsewhere in the document, they mean "derivative work under copyright
law".  And one *might* also expect that an organization's interpretation
of "derivative work under copyright law" would not vary between
licenses.  Jeff, I think, was just saying, well, gee, if FSF's
interpretation of copyright law for the GPL makes source code that
refers to a library a "derivative work" of the library, then wouldn't
their interpretation of copyright law still be the same in the LGPL?

-- Eric

---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message