www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com>
Subject Re: New versions of CC licenses
Date Mon, 09 Dec 2013 13:55:19 GMT


Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote on 12/09/2013 08:35:18 AM:

> From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
> To: "legal-discuss@apache.org Discuss" <legal-discuss@apache.org>,
> Date: 12/09/2013 08:35 AM
> Subject: Re: New versions of CC licenses
>
>
> On Dec 8, 2013, at 9:10 PM, Jeffrey Thompson <jthom@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > I understand, but Apache's policy of public offers doesn't change
> the law of copyright licensing.
> >
>
> I understand that, but I'm still now sure where and how this
> affects us, the ASF. If this whole discussion is based on
> actions or policies that the ASF doesn't take part in, then
> I fail to see how this is an ASF issue.

I don't think that it changes anything that ASF has to do.  We were
discussing precisely what terms could apply between an Apache consumer (B)
and its customer (C).  My statement is that, notwithstanding Apache's
policy of making a public offer under the AL2.0, once B gets the code it
can (in its license) pass on only a subset of AL2.0 rights (e.g., B's
license terms can prohibit modification).  That doesn't mean that C still
doesn't have available the public offer from ASF under AL2.0, its just the
B is not participating in that part of the transaction.

This all started with Larry's proposal of CC-BY.  I pointed out that there
is language in it that seems to state that B can't prohibit modification of
the included CC-BY material.  At that point, we went off on a tangent of
whether AL2.0 prevents B from prohibiting modification of included AL2.0
code.  Again, I'm focusing specifically just on the terms of the license
between B and C.  Any rights that C has directly from A is a different
question.

As far as I'm concerned, ASF doesn't need to do anything.  But, if it plans
in adopting CC-BY as a Category A license (which as I understand it is the
category of licenses for which there are no restriction on how material
under that license is incorporated into ASF projects), then I think it
should seek clarification of that anti-DRM paragraph in CC-BY because it
could cause problems.  At the very least, as Larry and Richard suggested,
the projects need to be designed to enable quick and easy removal of the
CC-BY material and consumers of that project need to be put on notice of
the potential problem.

Jeff
Counsel, IBM Software Group
Mime
View raw message