Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of rfontana@redhat.com designates
 209.132.183.28 as permitted sender)
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 22:19:00 -0500
From: Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com>
To: legal-discuss@apache.org, lrosen@rosenlaw.com
Subject: Re: New versions of CC licenses
Message-ID: <20131205031900.GA19718@redhat.com>
References: <12a701ceed29$db0e69c0$912b3d40$@rosenlaw.com>
 <CAFPTOkVnUhs8uOncVe5NHyT=1gqX+1LT2uvEr3CZP64A9+Gv8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <OF9D860F6D.4BEA6CFE-ON85257C37.00516D25-85257C37.0052B2B6@us.ibm.com>
 <01a601cef121$81169a40$8343cec0$@rosenlaw.com>
 <OF55B55D21.CC53B6D4-ON85257C37.007A7AD7-85257C37.007BAD69@us.ibm.com>
 <021601cef154$3a33e730$ae9bb590$@rosenlaw.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <021601cef154$3a33e730$ae9bb590$@rosenlaw.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 04:52:07PM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
> 
> > There is no general copyright principle that says that a licensee has
> > to pass on all rights that it received from its licensor.  If you can provide
> > a cite to one, please do.
> 
> How does IBM avoid passing on those rights? 

I believe Jeffrey is correct about general principle, but the issue
depends on the specific license, does it not? It is not clear to me
where in the Apache License 2.0 permission is granted to a licensee to
pass on fewer than all the rights it received from its licensor as to
the work which the licensor licensed. (Or maybe I should say the
better interpretation of the Apache License 2.0 seems to be that it
does not.) 

- Richard


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org