On Mar 15, 2007, at 3:03 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> 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.
Apple, when you buy Mac OS X, grants you a license to use Perl
under the terms of the Artistic License. It is the only license
granted to you by Apple.
> 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.
Sure, though they might need the original bit in order to identify
what they need to strip out, exactly. My point is that you do need to
have the equivalent of the original bits to use the original terms
(*), and a redistribution isn't required to provide the original bits
or a way to get to them. In the meantime, your license terms are
different.
-wsv
(*) Probably. Entertainment industry lawyers may not agree that
how you got these bits isn't relevant.
—
Wilfredo Sánchez - wsanchez@wsanchez.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
|