www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject RE: New versions of CC licenses
Date Thu, 05 Dec 2013 00:52:07 GMT
Jeffrey Thompson wrote:

>  We've had this discussion before.  The Apache license does not say

>  that it must become a part of the license under which the Apache

>  user licenses the resulting product to its customer.  It merely states
that 

>  a copy of the Apache license needs to be provided.  This was part of the

>  design.



Which design are you referring to? I'm reading the OSD....

 

The Apache License applies to all works distributed by ASF. A contributor's
license applies to her contributions included in that Apache work. There is
nothing that a downstream licensor can do to change that short of requesting
new licenses from the licensors.

 

> There is no general copyright principle that says that a licensee has 

> to pass on all rights that it received from its licensor.  If you can
provide

> a cite to one, please do.

 

How does IBM avoid passing on those rights? The second sentence of 17 USC
103(b) says: "The copyright in [compilations and derivative works] is
independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration,
ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting
material [e.g., contributions]."

 

There is also an Apache License provision that says almost the same thing.
Richard Fontana quoted section 4d:

 

You ... may provide additional or different license terms and  conditions
for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your  modifications, or for any
such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and
distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in
this License.

 

This is not a big burden for Apache licensees, because the conditions we
impose are minimal. See section 4 of the license. Almost anyone can satisfy
those conditions trivially. The same easy implementation can be said for the
BSD and CC-BY licenses.

 

> Let me ask you this, IBM creates and licenses development tools to 

> its customers under the IPLA (a proprietary license which is named 

> the International Program License Agreement)....

 

I've never compared the Apache License to IBM's proprietary International
Program License Agreement (IPLA) and I'm confused that you did. The
conditions you impose on your customers are your own business, and you are
free to wrap our Apache software, along with your own software, under any
license you choose. I've advised many clients to do similar things,
including wrapping combinations of Apache and GPL software under other
proprietary or FOSS licenses! All I'd insist is that your customers must be
informed about the presence of ASF software in your products, and those ASF
components must be distributed in accordance with section 4 of the Apache
License. Just as the BSD components you use must be distributed in
accordance with the conditions of the BSD license. Or CC-BY components and
GPL components, each in accordance with its own license.

 

> BTW, this is the entire basis of the FSF's concept of GPL-compatibility.

> A license is compatible with the GPL if it provides at least
GPL-equivalent

> rights and therefore someone can take code under that license and 

> license it outbound under the GPL.  Whether we think that making

> things GPL-compatible is a good idea, the existence of the concept 

> of GPL-compatible licenses proves that Larry is incorrect.

 

I should refrain from repeating what I've said for years: The concept of
GPL-compatible licenses is a lot of nonsense relating to creating derivative
works through linking. In all other respects, the GPL licenses are
wonderfully compatible with all other FOSS licenses. Such works can be
included in FOSS or proprietary collective works without concern, as long as
the notice and source code requirements of the GPL components (and their
derivative works!) are honored.

 

The fundamental concept of FOSS licenses is that you can copy, modify and
distribute such works merely by satisfying a simple set of conditions,
mostly requiring that you provide notice, along with (in some cases) source
code for THOSE WORKS (and derivative works?). DRM can be used to protect
your own proprietary code, but not to shield free FOSS works from your
customers who are entitled to see them.

 

Again, I don't know why you and Luis are complaining about CC-BY. The
GPLv3's DRM conditions are far more strict than those of CC-BY. Nothing in
CC-BY requires the disclosure of "complete corresponding source code" nor
even the "source code" at all. All it requires is a notice - and an
agreement to remove that notice if requested. How would that affect your
proprietary licenses in any way? How would it affect your use of DRM to
protect your own proprietary software from disclosure?

 

/Larry

 

Lawrence Rosen

Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com
<http://www.rosenlaw.com/> )

3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482

Office: 707-485-1242

Linkedin profile: http://linkd.in/XXpHyu 

 

From: Jeffrey Thompson [mailto:jthom@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 2:31 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: RE: New versions of CC licenses

 

"Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote on 12/04/2013 01:49:02 PM:
> No. The Apache License 2.0 license is /also/ carried forward 
> verbatim in the commercial licensor's license to its customer. As 
> are the licenses of /each of the components/ in that Apache work. 

Larry,
     We've had this discussion before.  The Apache license does not say that
it must become a part of the license under which the Apache user licenses
the resulting product to its customer.  It merely states that a copy of the
Apache license needs to be provided.  This was part of the design.

>  
> You can't undo a copyright owner's license by slapping your own 
> proprietary license on top of it.

There is no general copyright principle that says that a licensee has to
pass on all rights that it received from its licensor.  If you can provide a
cite to one, please do.

Let me ask you this, IBM creates and licenses development tools to its
customers under the IPLA (a proprietary license which is named the
International Program License Agreement).  For the tools that embed runtimes
in the developed applications, the terms of the license permit
redistribution of those runtimes in your application.  Is it really your
position that IBM customers must incorporate the IPLA into their outbound
licenses?  If they also use Microsoft and Oracle development tools, do they
need to include the licenses from those vendors, as well?  This would be
news to the entire software industry.

Jeff

>  
> /Larry
>  


Mime
View raw message