www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Date Wed, 29 May 2013 01:47:19 GMT

On May 28, 2013, at 9:08 PM, "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> 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. This is intentional, so as to eliminate
issues of privity of contract that bedevil IP enforcement. So get used to not getting what
you think you need -- but getting everything that you (and our users!) actually need.

Confession: time constraints are preventing me from giving this thread its due...

Besides Sam not getting what you think he needs, is there an actual problem? ; -) Sam's position
is (at least to me) consistent with the historical position of legal affairs committee. AFAICT,
this position is not causing significant issues to any projects (at least currently).

If a Category B classification is causing actual problems to a project, then the project should
raise this issue on legal-discuss and re can reexamine the issue… Any problems with this?
 
> 
> /Larry
> 
> [1] I wrote about sublicensing starting on page 87 of my book, where I noted that the
BSD license is NOT sublicenseable. :-)  See http://rosenlaw.com/pdf-files/Rosen_Ch05.pdf.


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


Mime
View raw message