www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: About bundling JavaScript with frameworks
Date Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:03:19 GMT
On Mar 15, 2007, at 2:11 PM, Wilfredo Sánchez Vega wrote:

>   I don't think this interpretation is shared by all legal types.   
> If the licensor allows you to choose, you can choose.  Perl, for  
> example, is either Artistic or GPL.
>
>   If I want to distribute a fork of Perl which is under the GPL but  
> not Artistic license, I am able to do so.  Of course you can always  
> get the un-forked version from the Perl folks and use Artistic, but  
> you can't use my distro except under the GPL, at least not under a  
> license you got from me.

No, that is mixing a whole bunch of things up.  Use is not controlled by
any copyright license.  Redistribution of the forked version is  
controlled
by the sum of its parts -- in this case, GPL, since you presumably added
parts that were copyrightable and only GPL.  However, any recipient of
that software can strip out your modifications and the other parts  
remain
under whatever licenses were assigned to it by the copyright owners.
They don't need to get a new copy of the bits for the original source,
since the original source still owns the bits that you distributed.
They remain under dual-license regardless of your redistribution terms.

Compilations are a pretty well understood part of copyright law.
If you have a book consisting of collected papers and you wish to copy
just one of those papers from the book, you only need permission from
the copyright owner of that paper (not from the owner of the compilation
copyright embodied in the book as a whole).

The redistribution terms on the original bits do not change until you
have sufficiently modified the original such that it is no longer a
compilation and it becomes a derivative work with its own copyright.

>   My understanding is that the combination can change the source  
> code license of the parts, so long as it still complies with the  
> source code license of the parts.  Compliance in a dual-license  
> case means compliance with either license.  Which is why I think  
> dual-licensing is retarded; it basically invites forking over the  
> licensing.

It becomes a mess as soon as downstream redistributors start integrating
changes from third-parties, yes.

>   IIRC, Apple, for example, distributes Perl under the Artistic  
> license, and not under the GPL, in Mac OS X.

Right, Apple does that.  But Apple cannot tell its users that they  
can only
redistribute that version of Perl under the Artistic license, since  
Apple
does not own Perl.  They have no standing on which to restrict the  
copyright
terms even if they only need half the terms for their own  
redistribution.

....Roy


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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


Mime
View raw message