Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 18:07:59 +0300
From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Message-ID: <20130520150759.GG3201@lp-shahaf.local>
References: <51916CDE.4060306@schor.com>
 <B9D1935B-8072-4556-BEF7-7FFC291F8B6E@gmail.com>
 <315711F0-58B0-4302-89B0-B2178840D4AA@gmail.com>
 <CAFG6u8F5wJpkZHu+fJnDck94iXLUKU_x+RnQSLyxxsPQmK2Shw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAFG6u8F5wJpkZHu+fJnDck94iXLUKU_x+RnQSLyxxsPQmK2Shw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

Sam Ruby wrote on Fri, May 17, 2013 at 15:31:56 -0400:
> 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)

That clause means a CC-BY-3.0 -licensed work can't be re-released under
ALv2.  Does that suffice to exclude CC-BY-3.0 from Category A?

Daniel
(a bit unfortunate; the summary page makes it sound as though CC-BY is
compatible with the BSD license)

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