www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Cliff Schmidt" <cliffschm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Re: Re: The Createuve Commons Lic.
Date Fri, 27 Oct 2006 07:50:44 GMT
On 10/27/06, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
> On 10/26/06, Cliff Schmidt <cliffschmidt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/26/06, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
> > > I think it was a borderline license due to one of its clauses and not
> > > mentioned in 3rd party as its usage at the ASF wasn't known, but it's
> > > definitely in use at the ASF as Roller ships with icons licensed under
> > > that license. I suspect it's crept in in quite a few places, and for
> > > more than just images.
> > >
> > > Roller icons: http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/
> > >
> > > Cliff - do you recall what the problems were with creative commons?
> >
> > It depends on which CC license you're talking about.  Some of them do
> > not allow commercial derivative works and some don't allow derivative
> > works at all.  The one Hiram has a link to below is the most
> > permissive, only requiring attribution.  The only problem with this
> > license is that it explicitly denies the right to sublicense.
> My usual dumb question - what's sublicensing?

The act of sublicensing is what happens when a licensee becomes a
licensor to some other party by granting some or all of the rights
that they received as a licensee.  Unless restricted from sublicensing
under other terms (which is not allowed for source code under the
MPL/CDDL/CPL/EPL), the sublicensing can remove some of the granted
permissions or add some additional restrictions; of course, the other
direction would not make sense (you can't give more than you got).  In
the cases where sublicensing is restricted to identical terms, one
cannot offer the work under a different license if it leaves out any
part of the original permissions or (more likely) includes any
additional restriction.

If you are given the right to distribute but no right to sublicense,
the recipient of your distribution gets no rights from you to
copy/modify/distribute/etc what you just gave them.  So, what happens
to recipients of GPL, LGPL, and CC licenses, which do not allow
sublicensing?  They each include some intereting text saying that, at
the moment of distribution, the recipient automatically gets a license
from the original licensor -- without the middleman getting a chance
to do anything at all.  For practical purposes, I consider this pretty
similar to the right to sublicense but only under identical terms.

> My current level is that I get that we have all these bits in an
> Apache release with lots of licenses on them, and that we license the
> combination under the Apache license. Someone else then takes that and
> adds a few other bits (or maybe nothing) and licenses that combination
> under whatever they want as long as they obey the various bits in
> there.

True, but the issue here is whether someone takes any one of those
parts and decides to distribute it and offer a license to someone else
that is different from the original one.

> So for some of our projects this means there are parts of the source
> code that are trickier to change than other parts.
> How does sublicensing fit into this, and do the usual suspects (the
> MPL/CDDL group and LGPL/GPL) allow sublicensing?

I think I explained that above, but let me know if you'd like me to

And if there are any lawyers out there who want to correct/challenge
anything I've said, feel free!


DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message