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 Fri, 06 Dec 2013 21:39:57 GMT
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 04:10:23PM -0500, Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
> In my hypo from a few notes ago, A distributes software to B under AL2.0.  B
> combines it with GPL code and distributes the result to C under the GPL.  As
> far as C is concerned, the GPL is the only license it needs to read in order to
> understand what rights it gets from B, even for A's code.  AL2.0 is in the
> notices file and C can review that if it wants to, but if there ever is a
> dispute between B and C, the license of record, the terms that get submitted to
> the court for interpretation, is the GPL, right?  

Maybe, maybe not, depending on what the dispute is about. "The only
license it needs to read" is not correct. C needs to read the Apache
License 2.0 to understand fully the rights it is getting and the
requirements or obligations it has to upstream licensors.

The Apache License does not *vanish*.

Why does the Apache License 2.0 require inclusion of the license text,
after all? It could easily have said that distributors are free to
delete the ALv2 license file. The Artistic License 2.0, as I recall,
allows this, by design.

 - RF


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


Mime
View raw message