www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: New versions of CC licenses
Date Sat, 07 Dec 2013 21:18:29 GMT
On Dec 7, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> This would then imply that the 4-clause BSD (with the advertising
> clause) should not be in Category A, since it is widely held (by most
> of those who claim to care about the issue) that the advertising
> clause is incompatible with the GPL. I have even heard of downstream
> commercial entities that have voiced concerns over the use of
> advertising clauses. But both Roy Fielding and JimJag have said that
> all versions of the BSD license, including those with the advertising
> clause, are supposed to be in Category A. I have no view on whether
> that is correct or not, just pointing out what seems like an
> inconsistency to me.

I think that is because you read the terms literally, whereas we
read them with experience of historical (and demonstrated) intent
and precedence.

In every case we have considered and discussed with the copyright
owners, their advertising clause has been satisfied by the NOTICE file.
That is, in fact, why we created the NOTICE file.  Apache httpd
was originally under the 4-clause BSD.

It is important to understand that the exact wording of the BSD
license can be interpreted with respect to the intent of the original
drafters of that license and the intent of the open source developers
that chose it.  In all cases we have seen, that intent is to ensure
that their creative work is correctly attributed where such
attributions are customary.  The fact that the wording suggests a
much broader attribution is an accident of history.  That accident
is commonly understood by open source projects and admitted by UCB.

So, what we do is distribute such software under the Apache License
with the required advertising in NOTICE, based on what we know of
the BSD license intent.  If any such copyright owner chooses to
object to that redistribution, we will address their objections
at that time.  We do not expect anyone to do so.

Regardless, the Apache License explicitly allows sublicensing.
The BSD licenses implicitly permit it as well.  The CC-BY license
explicitly forbids sublicensing. I don't know why, but it is hard
to argue that it wasn't intentional.


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

View raw message