www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com>
Subject RE: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Date Fri, 24 May 2013 19:04:38 GMT
"Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote on 05/24/2013 02:13:08 PM:

> Jeffrey Thompson asked:
> >    Is it your understanding that unless the license says that you
> can distribute under different terms, you have to distribute under
> the same terms under which you received the code?

>
> No. That’s not what I mean. I mean only that the original work
> remains available to others under the same terms under which you
> received that code (from the original licensor and, if you are nice,
> from you too).

Right.  Sorry about misinterpreting the other note.  I agree that someone
distributing Apache code under a different license doesn't negate the
rights still available from the original authors.

>
> Placing the Apache License on a work means that those Apache terms apply
to
> that work. I can give you permission to distribute that work under
> different licenses, or to sublicense it, etc., but I don’t thereby
> give you permission to undo the (Apache) terms for that work.
>
> 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.
> However, if you distribute a derivative work of that work and put
> your own license on it, your license applies to the derivative work
> as a whole and the Apache License applies to the original work within it.
>
> I believe this is consistent with 17 USC 103(b).
>
> /Larry
>
>
> From: Jeffrey Thompson [mailto:jthom@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 10:48 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: RE: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons
Attribution
>
> Larry,
>    I just looked again at the Apache license and I don't see any
> statement similar to 4.a that the Work can only be distributed under
> the Apache terms.  I see a broad right to distribute, unfettered.  I
> also see a sentence that explicitly states that you can have
> separate terms cover your modifications, but how would that withdraw
> the rights from the broad grant?
>
>    Is it your understanding that unless the license says that you
> can distribute under different terms, you have to distribute under
> the same terms under which you received the code?
> Jeff
>
> "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote on 05/23/2013 10:52:08 PM:
>
> > Kevan,
> >
> > I believe that CC-BY should remain Category A.
> >
> > The statement you quoted from the license would apply to the Apache
License
> > also. Nobody can distribute an Apache work except under the terms of
the
> > Apache License. As for derivative works, that's another matter....
> >
> > /Larry
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kevan Miller [mailto:kevan.miller@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 6:54 AM
> > To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> > Subject: Re: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons
Attribution
> >
> >
> > On May 17, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> 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."
> > >
> Jeff
>
> Counsel, IBM Corporation  (914)766-1757  (tie)8-826  (fax) -7164
>
Jeff

Counsel, IBM Corporation  (914)766-1757  (tie)8-826  (fax) -7164
Mime
View raw message