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 Thu, 05 Dec 2013 23:57:09 GMT

Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com> wrote on 12/05/2013 03:41:26 PM:
> >                The component is still AVAILABLE under the
> > AL2.0 license and C and take advantage of those rights if it
> chooses to do so,
> > but as between B and C, the license agreement to the derivative
> work does not
> > need to include the language of AL2.0.
> I agree with this. What I don't see is how CC BY is different.
> It does not say:
>   You may provide additional or different license terms and conditions
>   for use, reproduction, or distribution of the Work, provided Your
>   use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies
>   with the conditions stated in this License.
> I believe that is significant.

But, its not really significant.  There is no rule in copyright licenses
that says that you can't pass on fewer rights than you received.  If you
think that there is, then you need to provide a cite.  A statute.  A case.
A section reference to Nimmer on Copyrights.  Anything.  Please.  But,
until you have something, we're just spinning our wheels here.

> It restricts the terms of the license grant for the CC BY
> material. The Apache License 2.0 restricts the terms of the license
> grant for the Apache License 2.0 material.

The Apache license does not (except for the general requirement that you
can't pass on more rights than you received).  See my plea above.

> But he/she/it cant restrict the original license as to the originally
> licensed component, unless the original license allows this.

B can't change the terms under which B received the code and can't negate
the existence of the public offer from A that C can take advantage of
(assuming it was indeed a public offer), but B can certainly limit what
rights it grants to C (at least as between B and C).  I'm willing to
discuss actual legal principles if you have cites to them.  But just
repeating a belief about a legal topic isn't going to help.

Counsel, IBM Software Group
View raw message