On 5 December 2013 14:43, Jeffrey Thompson <jthom@us.ibm.com> wrote:

Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote on 12/05/2013 09:33:09 AM:


> On 5 December 2013 13:55, Jeffrey Thompson <jthom@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote on 12/04/2013 07:52:07 PM:
> > Again, I don't know why you and Luis are complaining about CC-BY.
> > The GPLv3's DRM conditions are far more strict than those of CC-BY.
> > Nothing in CC-BY requires the disclosure of "complete corresponding
> > source code" nor even the "source code" at all.
>

> I haven't addressed the DRM conditions.
>
> Isn't the mistake you are making in assuming that only one copy of
> the CC-BY licensed stuff is included?

>
> If I were shipping a binary with DRM to prevent modification of my
> code, I would presume (in my IANAL capacity) that the easy way out
> is to bundle a non-DRM copy of the CC-BY licensed stuff in addition
> to the DRM protected stuff.

>

Stephen,
    I haven't addressed the DRM restriction.  I'm talking about the license terms under which the customer receives the combined work.


yes and as long as you can maintain your rights on the individual components *as* individual components (i.e. extracted from the combined work) what is the issue if the license terms of the combined work *as a whole* are more restrictive.

 
Jeff
Counsel, IBM Software Group