"Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote on 12/06/2013 04:48:44 PM:

> > What do you mean by "distribute them under different licenses"?

> I mean precisely what we at Apache (and many other FOSS projects) do
> with BSD and MIT software that we include in our software. I also
> mean what projects do who take Apache software and distribute it
> under the GPL, or companies under proprietary licenses.

 
That doesn't answer the question.  I'm trying to get precise as to what terms apply to C.

Code from A is licensed to B under BSD.  B adds some of its own code and licenses the combined work to C under the Apache license.  B is distributing A's code under a "different license" from what it received the code under.  If that's the case, as between B and C, the ONLY license that is relevant in a dispute between B and C is AL2.0.  If A shows up and claims that B exceeded its authority, of course BSD terms come into the picture then because the transaction between A and B is now in question, but that's not what I'm asking.  Just between B and C, what are the terms?

On the other hand, if what you are saying is that B distributes the combined work to C, but A's code is licensed to C under the BSD and B's code and any copyright in the collection is licensed to C under the AL2.0, then I don't see how that's a different license.  In that case, in a dispute between B and C, both the BSD license and the AL2.0 are relevant licenses.  

Which case do you mean when you say "distribute under different licenses"?  Either is possible, as far as I can tell.  But, I wouldn't call the second structure as distributing A's code under a different license.  I'd call it passing A's license on to C.


Jeff
Counsel, IBM Software Group