Jeff Thompson wrote:
> At least from a potential commercial user's perspective,
> Section 2.a.5.B effectively requires carrying forward
> the CC license terms verbatim in the user's license to
> its customer.
> Isn't that a problem from an Apache licensing policy
No. The Apache License 2.0 license is /also/ carried forward verbatim in the commercial licensor's license to its customer. As are the licenses of /each of the components/ in that Apache work.
You can't undo a copyright owner's license by slapping your own proprietary license on top of it.
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Linkedin profile: http://linkd.in/XXpHyu
email@example.com wrote on 12/04/2013 01:56:04 AM:
> As I believe I've noted here before, CC (4.0 and earlier) has an
> anti-DRM provision that makes it a poor fit for the embedded/mobile
. . .
> there is nothing else in 4.0 that would be
I'm not sure I agree with that summary. The anti-DRM provision is more than just a "no-technological measures" requirement. At least from a potential commercial user's perspective, Section 2.a.5.B effectively requires carrying forward the CC license terms verbatim in the user's license to its customer. Isn't that a problem from an Apache licensing policy perspective?
The gist of Apache's policy has been that as long as you're passing on the notices and otherwise complying with the license, its not a problem if the user's commercial terms with their customers are different from the Apache license (for example, most commercial licenses prohibit modification, or at least void warranties and support, etc if the code is modified). Wouldn't anything that changes that basic understanding be problematic (e.g., you MUST grant all of the rights that you received)?
Counsel, IBM Corporation