www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject RE: Comments on GPLv3
Date Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:38:07 GMT
I'm sure Jeff will speak for himself, but I read his earlier comment as
saying that the GPLv3 portion of a collective work remains under GPLv3, just
as the Apache portion of a collective work remains under the Apache License.
Nothing in the collective work license (which can be *any* license) changes
those facts.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: justin.erenkrantz@gmail.com [mailto:justin.erenkrantz@gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of Justin Erenkrantz
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 12:15 PM
> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Comments on GPLv3
> On 6/14/07, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> > > But, as Jeff pointed out, the collective work has to be licensed under
> > > the terms of the GPLv3.
> >
> > I don't believe Jeff said that. Neither did I. The license for the
> > collective work can be any license you want to use. /Larry
> The following is where I believe Jeff said exactly that:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-
> discuss/200706.mbox/%3cOFA2C4060F.08F500C7-ON852572F9.0049DF00-
> 852572F9.004A76EE@us.ibm.com%3e
> Or, am I misunderstanding what was said?  -- justin

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