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 Fri, 06 Dec 2013 21:10:23 GMT


"Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote on 12/06/2013 03:31:54 PM:

> SITUTATION 1: You are describing the situation where Apache /gives/
> FOSS works to others who then distribute them under different
> licenses.

Larry,
    What do you mean by "distribute them under different licenses"?

In my hypo from a few notes ago, A distributes software to B under AL2.0.
B combines it with GPL code and distributes the result to C under the GPL.
As far as C is concerned, the GPL is the only license it needs to read in
order to understand what rights it gets from B, even for A's code.  AL2.0
is in the notices file and C can review that if it wants to, but if there
ever is a dispute between B and C, the license of record, the terms that
get submitted to the court for interpretation, is the GPL, right?  If not,
then you're using English wrong.

> SITUATION 2: I'm also concerned about properly describing the
> situation where Apache /takes/ FOSS works of others and then
> distributes them under the Apache License.

You may or may not be able to do that, depending on what the original
license is.  I'm confident that if we asked the FSF, they wouldn't say that
we can incorporate their GPL code into an Apache project and license it
outbound under AL2.0.  At best, Apache can include the GPL code in its
project and provide 2 licenses -- AL2.0 for everything not virally impacted
by the GPL code, and GPL for the remainder.  But, that's not distributing
the project "under the Apache License" in any reasonable interpretation of
that phrase.

I'm sure that there is a logic to your approach, but for the life of me, I
can't divine what it is.  Can you explain?

Jeff
Counsel, IBM Software Group.

Mime
View raw message