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: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Date Sat, 18 May 2013 15:41:49 GMT
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Craig L Russell
<craig.russell@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> On May 17, 2013, at 12:31 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On May 15, 2013, at 4:51 PM, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 13, 2013, at 6:44 PM, Marshall Schor <msa@schor.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The page http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>>>> says that the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-A) license may be included
in
>>>>> Apache releases, but it links to version 2.5 of that license.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have some content (icons) which are licensed under version 3.0 of
that
>>>>> license, specifically, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
>>>>>
>>>>> 2 questions:
>>>>> (1) Are things licensed under this OK to include with Apache distributions,
and
>>>>> (2) Should the legal/resolve page be updated to reflect this?
>>>>
>>>> Version 3.0 looks ok to me. Unless I hear objections, I'll update our web
site to reflect this…
>>>
>>> Done.
>>
>> Drilling down into the actual license, I note the following text:
>>
>> 4.a. "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the
>> terms of this License."
>>
>> Doesn't that make this license category B?  (Note: this comment also
>> applies to previous versions of the license, including versions that
>> were previously approved)
>
> This license is not viral. The terms of 4.a refer to "the Work" not to derived works.
Specifically, in 4.a "...but this does not require the Collection apart from the Work itself
to be made subject to the terms of this License".

I agree that it is not category-X.

> All I think it means is that including the Work in an Apache distribution needs to preserve
the license terms of the Work.
>
> So I don't see the issue.

We allow licensees of our code to impose additional restrictions on
distributions of derived works based on our software.  We are
intentionally compatible with GPLv3 and proprietary (closed source)
licenses.  This license appears to not be compatible with either.

In fact, compare that philosophy with the following excerpts from CC
Attribution 3.0:

 * You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the
terms of this License or the ability of a recipient of the Work to
exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the
License.

 * You may not sublicense the Work.

 * You may not impose any technological measures on the Work that
restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise
the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License.

> Craig

- 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