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: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 17:45:03 -0500
From: Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com>
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: New versions of CC licenses
Message-ID: <20131207224503.GA10343@redhat.com>
References: 
 <CA+nPnMwR5MD=mTGnTV1bqaKRtd_0D3uRbyWPLq+QmpFh=CyxFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <OF8871E5F8.932FD411-ON85257C38.00509F10-85257C38.0050E017@us.ibm.com>
 <CA+nPnMySAZe0sD1jWNFKKwmQH3x9D_LPMCekZhiEf0zMEosAxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <OF70FFFA06.197CC870-ON85257C38.00523171-85257C38.0053CF4B@us.ibm.com>
 <20131205213047.GG26699@redhat.com>
 <C7544AFB-0AC0-4719-A92B-65191B9A5748@jaguNET.com>
 <058e01cef2c5$8ae0a3e0$a0a1eba0$@rosenlaw.com>
 <OFC5BA758A.44E88E82-ON85257C39.00757366-85257C39.0075E4AD@us.ibm.com>
 <20131207064829.GB5091@redhat.com>
 <OFF028715B.8419A7A3-ON85257C3A.006C1E8E-85257C3A.006E1DF2@us.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <OFF028715B.8419A7A3-ON85257C3A.006C1E8E-85257C3A.006E1DF2@us.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 03:02:46PM -0500, Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
 
[...]
> You've made tremendously great leaps of reasoning here, especially since your
> conclusion directly contradicts the license author's stated policy of creating
> a license that permits commercial licensing of the code.  

The meaning of 'permits commercial licensing of the code' is not clear
to me. If we return to CC BY, you seemed to be saying that what made
CC BY 'commercially unfriendly' -- which I assume is related to this
concept of 'permitting commercial licensing' -- is that later
inclusion of CC BY material might be in conflict with an earlier
product license that was drafted on the assumption that the product
could never possibly include CC BY material. What made CC BY
'commercially unfriendly', therefore, was that it violated a
downstream license nonrevisability principle.

It seemed from what you were saying that if CC BY icons are included
in a product at the outset, and the product license is drafted in
whatever way is thought necessary to comply with CC BY, then there
could be no argument of commercial unfriendliness in that case. Thus
in general CC BY is not 'commercially unfriendly' -- it's only
unfriendly in those cases where there's a license in place prior to
inclusion (or awareness of inclusion) of the CC BY material.

The 'downstream license nonrevisability principle' had never occurred
to me as something that might be thought key to what 'permitting
commercial licensing' ought to mean. I have to be skeptical about
whether the ALv2 authors had this nonrevisability principle in mind
when ALv2 was being drafted. I believe they wanted to allow
proprietary derivative works of ALv2 material in the same way that
Creative Commons wants to allow proprietary derivative works of CC BY
material.

- RF


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