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 Wed, 04 Dec 2013 17:05:26 GMT

Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com> wrote on 12/04/2013 11:29:42 AM:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 10:03:17AM -0500, Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
> > I'm not sure I agree with that summary.  The anti-DRM provision ismore
> > just a "no-technological measures" requirement.  At least from a
> > commercial user's perspective, Section 2.a.5.B effectively requires
> > forward the CC license terms verbatim in the user's license to
> >  Isn't that a problem from an Apache licensing policy perspective?
> That's arguably true of the BSD licenses too, and the Apache License
> 2.0 itself.

How is that arguably true for either of those licenses?  I don't see
anything in the Apache or the BSD license that requires a commercial user
to change their licensing terms with their customer.  The requirement that
the copy of the original license be included with the software doesn't do
that.  Depending on how the exact language of the license is interpreted in
accordance with local copyright law, it could mean (a) that its a mere
notice of the terms under which the commercial user received the code or
(b) documentation of the rights that flow from the original author directly
to the customer.  But, how could it mean that the separately negotiated
license between the commercial user and their customer is somehow invalid?

Counsel, IBM Software Group
View raw message