www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Fontana <rfont...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Date Wed, 29 May 2013 01:26:23 GMT
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 06:08:03PM -0700, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
> > Our license was intentionally written to be sublicensable.  
> > We have licencees who have chosen to make use of our code based on this provision.
> 
> Quite so. And my own licenses also were written to be sublicenseable based on my understanding
of FOSS requirements in those days. [1]
> 
> But the fact remains that many IP licenses nowadays are not sublicenseable. They flow
directly from the IP owner to each and every user. 

[...] 
> [1] I wrote about sublicensing starting on page 87 of my book, where I noted that the
BSD license is NOT sublicenseable. :-)  

I was just about to make this point (though I would have said
'arguably not sublicenseable'). If BSD is the quintessential Category
A license, then the mere presence of a no-sublicensing clause
shouldn't be enough to put a license into Category B (?).

Incidentally, the FSF treats CC0 as GPL-compatible even though even
*it* has a no-sublicensing clause. I pointed this out casually to the
FSF to make sure they had taken notice of it. 

 - RF


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


Mime
View raw message