www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: New versions of CC licenses
Date Thu, 05 Dec 2013 14:52:32 GMT
On 5 December 2013 14:43, Jeffrey Thompson <jthom@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote on 12/05/2013
> 09:33:09 AM:
>
> > On 5 December 2013 13:55, Jeffrey Thompson <jthom@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote on 12/04/2013 07:52:07 PM:
> > > 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.
> >
>
> > I haven't addressed the DRM conditions.
> >
> > Isn't the mistake you are making in assuming that only one copy of
> > the CC-BY licensed stuff is included?
> >
> > If I were shipping a binary with DRM to prevent modification of my
> > code, I would presume (in my IANAL capacity) that the easy way out
> > is to bundle a non-DRM copy of the CC-BY licensed stuff in addition
> > to the DRM protected stuff.
> >
>
> Stephen,
>     I haven't addressed the DRM restriction.  I'm talking about the
> license terms under which the customer receives the combined work.
>
>
yes and as long as you can maintain your rights on the individual
components *as* individual components (i.e. extracted from the combined
work) what is the issue if the license terms of the combined work *as a
whole* are more restrictive.



> Jeff
> Counsel, IBM Software Group
>
>

Mime
View raw message