www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: New versions of CC licenses
Date Fri, 06 Dec 2013 14:47:36 GMT
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 6:33 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:

>
> On Dec 5, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > You keep asserting this but I do not think you are correct. The
> > general rule in the US, though it is a state law issue, is that you
> > need explicit permission to pass on a proper subset of rights received
> > as to the original material. CC BY clearly denies this permission. I
> > think the Apache License 2.0 is best read as denying this right, and
> > that view is consistent with what I've heard some ASF people say on
> > this list (for example, in one of the AOO vs. LibreOffice threads that
> > came up a year or so ago).
>
> +1
>

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding.  Perhaps recasting this question into another
context will help me understand.

My understanding is that the MPL version 4 and the GPL version 3 are more
restrictive than the Apache License, Version 2.

My understanding is that the Apache License, Version 2 is widely considered
to be "compatible" with both licenses, in the sense that Apache code may be
incorporated into products that are released under the Mozilla and GPL
licenses.

Is my understanding wrong?

- Sam Ruby

Mime
View raw message