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 Fri, 24 May 2013 18:59:13 GMT
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>
> As a practical matter, if you distribute that Apache work unmodified and put
> your own license on it, I would consider it equivalent to a dual-licensed
> work under both the Apache License and your license.

I'm not certain I follow, or how this relates to the original
discussion.  But as a practical matter, the Apache Licence and CC-BY
are very different.

There is code at the ASF that others have incorporated and have
released under various versions of GPL licenses.  And others have have
released under proprietary (non-open source) licenses.  Of course,
these actions don't prevent people who desire access to the original
source to get such from the original source -- namely us.

If that's what you mean by dual license (you can get the code from us
under one license or from somebody else under a different license),
that's fine.  But as a practical matter what I will note that what I
just described is expressedly NOT allowed by CC-BY.

Given these differences, it makes sense for us to carefully evaluate
cases where modifications may need to be required, and furthermore it
makes sense for us to highlight cases where we include such.

- 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