Stephen Connolly <email@example.com> wrote on 12/05/2013 09:33:09 AM:
> On 5 December 2013 13:55, Jeffrey Thompson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> "Lawrence Rosen" <email@example.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.
I haven't addressed the DRM restriction. I'm talking about the license terms under which the customer receives the combined work.
Counsel, IBM Software Group