www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Fontana <rfont...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: New versions of CC licenses
Date Wed, 04 Dec 2013 19:32:53 GMT
CC BY 4.0 (I assume we're now talking about 4.0) 2a5B says:

  You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or
  conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the
  Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed
  Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material.

'Licensed Material' means the original stuff put under CC BY.

I have to agree with Larry here, at least in the context of the
specific licenses that have been mentioned in this thread. None of the
BSD licenses gives you permission to alter the application of the BSD
license to the original stuff that was under the BSD license (unless
you want to argue that this is granted implicitly). What's different
about the CC BY clause is the part about Effective Technological
Measures, which I think was Luis's point.

As for the Apache License 2.0, I think it could be made clearer, but
it says in 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.

I think the fact that it speaks of 'such Derivative Works as a whole'
is relevant - original Apache License 2.0 code remains under Apache
License 2.0.

In other words all these licenses affirm that the original license
gets carried forward. That *can't* be a problem under Apache policy
because of a reductio ad absurdum - it would mean that the Apache
License 2.0 itself violates Apache licensing policy.

- RF



On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 10:49:02AM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Jeff Thompson wrote:
> > At least from a potential commercial user's perspective,
> 
> > Section 2.a.5.B effectively requires carrying forward
> 
> > the CC license terms verbatim in the user's license to
> 
> > its customer.  
> 
> > Isn't that a problem from an Apache licensing policy
> 
> > perspective?  
> 
>  
> 
> 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.
> 
>  
> 
> You can't undo a copyright owner's license by slapping your own proprietary
> license on top of it.
> 
>  
> 
> /Larry
> 
>  
> 
> Lawrence Rosen
> 
> Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (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 7:03 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen; luis.villa@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: New versions of CC licenses
> 
>  
> 
> Luis,
>      
> luis.villa@gmail.com wrote on 12/04/2013 01:56:04 AM:
> 
> > As I believe I've noted here before, CC (4.0 and earlier) has an
> > anti-DRM provision that makes it a poor fit for the embedded/mobile
> > space
>  . . .
> > there is nothing else in 4.0 that would be
> > problematic.
> >
> > Luis
> >
> I'm not sure I agree with that summary.  The anti-DRM provision is more than
> just a "no-technological measures" requirement.  At least from a potential
> commercial user's perspective, Section 2.a.5.B effectively requires carrying
> forward the CC license terms verbatim in the user's license to its customer.
>  Isn't that a problem from an Apache licensing policy perspective?  
> 
> The gist of Apache's policy has been that as long as you're passing on the
> notices and otherwise complying with the license, its not a problem if the
> user's commercial terms with their customers are different from the Apache
> license (for example, most commercial licenses prohibit modification, or at
> least void warranties and support, etc if the code is modified).  Wouldn't
> anything that changes that basic understanding be problematic (e.g., you MUST
> grant all of the rights that you received)?
> 
> Jeff
> 
> Counsel, IBM Corporation
> 

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


Mime
View raw message