www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>
Subject Re: When is a derivative not a derivative?
Date Fri, 16 Feb 2007 03:43:00 GMT
Santiago Gala wrote:
>>   The original Apache copyright is similar to the Berkeley copyright, except
>> that it stipulates that products derived from the code may not have "Apache" in
>> their name. The purpose of this clause is to avoid a situation in which another
>> party releases a modified version of the code named in such a way to make users
>> think that it is the "official" version. This is not an issue with OpenBSD
>> because OpenBSD is a Compilation, and not a Derived Work. Source code published
>> under version 2 of the Apache license cannot be included into OpenBSD. As a
>> consequence, OpenBSD now maintains its own version of Apache based on version
>> 1.3.29. The OpenBSD version includes many enhancements and bugfixes.
> IANAL, but "includes many enhancements and bugfixes" turns it
> automatically into a *Derived Work*, be it inside a *Compilation* or
> not. Isn't the previous paragraph self-contradicting?

IANAL either but the phrase "... based on ..." sure sounds like a
derivative to me.


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