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 01:59:07 GMT


Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote on 12/08/2013 07:06:53 PM:

> On Dec 7, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Jeffrey Thompson <jthom@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > You're explicitly contradicting yourself.  AL2.0 expressly says
> one can license "the Derivative Work as a whole" under their own
> terms, not "the Derivative Work as a collection under your own terms
> with the Work being licensed under AL2.0".
> >
>
> The intent though is that people should know that inside that  larger
work
> is some ALv2 licensed code that, no matter what the license of
> the larger work as a whole is under, and that they can have access to it
> (the bits) and such access is under ALv2.

Yes, though I'd prefer to say it more precisely -- B (the distributor) has
to inform C (the recipient) that it received the AL2.0 code under the
AL2.0, provide the recipient a copy of the AL2.0 so that it knows what
those rights are, and retain all copyright and proprietary notices so that
C knows that the code came from A (the author).  If A's offer is made
available to C, for example if its a public offer on an OSS website, C can
certainly take advantage of those rights if it chooses to do so.

None of that means that the transaction beween B and C includes the AL2.0
license terms, which is what Richard is saying.

Jeff
Counsel, IBM Software Group
Mime
View raw message