"Lawrence Rosen" <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
Counsel, IBM Software Group