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 02:10:31 GMT

Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote on 12/08/2013 07:15:56 PM:

> On Dec 7, 2013, at 2:32 PM, Jeffrey Thompson <jthom@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > Think if it this way, if A licensed B the code under AL2.0 as a
> private deal and not one that A has ever made available to anyone
> else.  Does it change your mind on whether C should be able to
> exercise AL2.0 rights to that code after it receives them from B
> under the GPL?  I would say the answer to that questions HAS TO BE
> yes, it does affect the answer.  C doesn't have an offer from A
> under AL2.0, so C's only avenue of rights is from B and B's grant is
> under the GPL, so that's what C is stuck with.
>
>
> But how does this affect the ASF at all? We license our code to anyone
> and everyone under the ALv2, so in the above scenario, C would already
> have a pre-existing ability to use the code under ALv2 no
> matter what B does. And the ASF never does "private deals"...

I understand, but Apache's policy of public offers doesn't change the law
of copyright licensing.

Larry and Richard were arguing that licensing law requires that full AL2.0
rights be passed on by B to C even though there is nothing in AL2.0 that
says that.  If there were a rule of interpretation for software licenses
that did imply such an obligation, it would be independent of whether A's
offer was public or private.

> All we want is to make sure that no matter what B tells C,
> that for the parts of B that came from A, C knows that it
> can also get those parts from A, under ALv2, no matter
> the license that B provided to C in the derivative work.
>
> So in the above, C *always* has an offer from A under ALv2. Always.

Right.  I agree 100%.  That's what the section 4 conditions implement.  B
must provide C a copy of AL2.0, etc., etc.  That doesn't change the terms
of the license grant between B and C, though.  But, more to your point,
nothing in the license grant between B and C would change the availability
of A's grant to C under AL2.0 either.  If A's offer is made generally
available to the public, it remains available to C notwithstanding B's
license terms.

I think all of us in this conversation agree on that result (though, I
think some of us might disagree on the particulars of how we get there).
What started all of this was the observation that CC-BY is different
because it REQUIRES that B's license to C include all of the CC-BY rights,
which AL2.0 does not.

Jeff
Counsel, IBM Software Group
Mime
View raw message