www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: fair use (was Re: What licenses in category X satisfy criterion #2?)
Date Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:56:06 GMT
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>  --- Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
>  > On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Joe Schaefer
>  > <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>  > >
>
> > >  I will repeat my statement that a license
>  > >  is not the arbiter of what is or is not a
>  > >  derivative
>  > >  work.  The question to me is whether or not
>  > >  writing
>  > >  some glue code to interface with some 3rd party
>  > >  GPL'd code qualifies as fair use, and is
>  > >  therefore
>  > >  not considered by the courts as a derivative
>  > >  work.
>  > >
>  > >  I believe this is in fact the case, but would
>  > >  appreciate it if someone skilled in these matters
>  > >  would offer an opinion here.
>
>  [...]
>
>
>  > Sometimes our downloads do not include code from
>  > third parties.  That
>  > may free us from obligation, but it is important to
>  > realize that it is
>  > our intention to enable licensees of our code (this
>  > would be the
>  > "second" parties involved in this third party
>  > discussion) to do with
>  > as they please -- limited only by the the terms and
>  > conditions
>  > specified in our license.
>
>  So there are two issues as far as copyright goes then,
>
>  1) what is the licensing on the tarball we distribute,
>  2) what is the licensing on the executable that the
>    user (ie second party) actually runs?

Yes for 1.

On #2, it is important to realize that our licensees may not actually
run the code themselves, but may sublicense our code for distribution
to fourth parties.

>  For dependencies on optional works that we do not
>  distribute, I don't think the ASF should be in the
>  businesss of policing what a user selects for
>  his/her preferred runtime.  The current policy
>  does try to say that somewhere, but then seems
>  to back-peddle when discussing GPL stuff.

Agreed.  But it is worth noting that the term "optional" is harder to
pin down than you might think.

A hadoop startup script is hardly optional, but is readily replaced.

Everything we produce is "soft" ware, so a developer with enough
motivation could replace *any* dependency that we might create.

ServiceMix providing a plugin for JBoss clearly is OK.

Where you draw the line, how you draw the line, and who gets to draw
the line: these are questions where reasonable people differ.

- Sam Ruby

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