www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Licenses are not always what they seem [was: RE: GPL licensing question ...]
Date Sun, 27 Jul 2008 21:53:20 GMT
--- On Sun, 7/27/08, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 11:38 PM, Joe Schaefer
> <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > --- On Sat, 7/26/08, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >
> >> If we wish to do something with a body of code,
> >> and the provided
> >> license does not give us the permissions we need,
> >> we should seek another license.
> >
> > Which is exactly what explicit permission is, a
> > license which
> > trumps all other considerations.
> If by explicit, you mean a signed agreement between the ASF
> and the third party that covers the terms, then I agree.
> If you mean verbal statement, a statement in email, a note
> on a web page, or any or all of the above when made by one of the
> contributors to the body of code, then I think that falls
> a bit short of what we need.

What I mean is something along these lines:


That's an email from the copyright owner (O'Reilly) to one of
our projects granting them explicit permission to use code
from a book.  That's hardly a signed document, but it's 
entirely good enough IMO.


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