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 Thu, 05 Dec 2013 20:41:26 GMT
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 02:00:12PM -0500, Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
> If A publishes the component with an AL2.0 license, B can accept that license,
> incorporate the component into its product and license the derivative work to C
> under its proprietary license.  The component is still AVAILABLE under the
> AL2.0 license and C and take advantage of those rights if it chooses to do so,
> but as between B and C, the license agreement to the derivative work does not
> need to include the language of AL2.0. 

I agree with this. What I don't see is how CC BY is different.

Again, note this clause in the Apache License 2.0:

  You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and
  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.

It does not say:

  You may provide additional or different license terms and conditions
  for use, reproduction, or distribution of the Work, provided Your
  use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies
  with the conditions stated in this License.

I believe that is significant.

> In any event, that's not my point either.  Commercial licenses, even the really
> restrictive ones, don't generally prevent customers from separately going and
> getting OSS code when they want broader rights.  My point is about the impact
> of the section in CC-BY that explicitly restricts the terms of the license
> grant between B and C.  That's what makes it commercially non-friendly.

It restricts the terms of the license grant for the CC BY
material. The Apache License 2.0 restricts the terms of the license
grant for the Apache License 2.0 material.

> I'm thinking that part of the confusion is the mental model that a particular
> license text follows the code as a matter of copyright law.  It doesn't.  A
> license makes certain grants of rights that the licensee is then permitted to
> exercise.  The license can include certain limitations on those rights (e.g.,
> in order to distribute under your own terms, you need to meet conditions
> 4.1-4.4).  The license can include contractual promises back and forth between
> the parties (e.g., you agree to indemnify the Contributors if your acceptance
> of warranty obligations somehow comes back and causes damage to the original
> authors).  But, all of that documents ONLY the transaction between the licensor
> and the licensee.  
> 
> If licensee then exercises some of those rights (e.g., the right to distribute
> derivative works), as long as he is in compliance with the limitations on the
> original grants and his contractual commitments, he's free to use whatever
> license language he and his customer agree to.  

But he/she/it cant restrict the original license as to the originally
licensed component, unless the original license allows this. 

 - RF

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


Mime
View raw message