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: [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-96) Categorise Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
Date Fri, 05 Aug 2011 18:38:06 GMT
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<rdonkin@apache.org> wrote:
> On 08/04/11 18:58, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>
>> And the "no sublicensing" is also tricky.
>
> AIUI relatively few open source licenses explicitly allow sublicensing
> but I'm not sure what stating "no sublicensing" is intended to do...

Can we get this discussion back to concrete terms?

I don't sense that we are near consensus on a blanket "allow this
license as category A under any circumstances".

The next question is how strong is the need?

If there is a strong need, and the problems are only hypothetical
and/or not applicable (e.g., concerns about embedded systems may not
directly apply to a product like OpenOffice.org, and perhaps could be
addressed via a notice).

If there is not a strong need -- and my read is that some of the
concerns are coming from those within OO.o (excellent!) and I've heard
(but don't have any direct knowledge of) that IBM will be providing a
codebase that people can cherry-pick from which addresses some of
these issues (perhaps this one?  perhaps not?  I don't know but
perhaps somebody on ooo-dev can find out?) -- then there really isn't
any pressing need to explore this issue further at this time.

So: what is the module in question, and how difficult would it be to replace?

> Robert

- Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message