Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5B8E010937 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 23:57:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 86744 invoked by uid 500); 5 Dec 2013 23:57:44 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 86538 invoked by uid 500); 5 Dec 2013 23:57:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 86531 invoked by uid 99); 5 Dec 2013 23:57:43 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 23:57:43 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jthom@us.ibm.com designates 32.97.182.137 as permitted sender) Received: from [32.97.182.137] (HELO e7.ny.us.ibm.com) (32.97.182.137) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 23:57:36 +0000 Received: from /spool/local by e7.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 18:57:15 -0500 Received: from d01dlp01.pok.ibm.com (9.56.250.166) by e7.ny.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.107) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 18:57:13 -0500 Received: from b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.23]) by d01dlp01.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AD8238C8047 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 18:57:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id rB5NvDqD4129146 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 23:57:13 GMT Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id rB5NvCo3023075 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 18:57:12 -0500 Received: from d01ml063.pok.ibm.com (d01ml063.pok.ibm.com [9.63.8.57]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id rB5NvCOE023063 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 18:57:12 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20131205204126.GB26699@redhat.com> References: <01a601cef121$81169a40$8343cec0$@rosenlaw.com> <021601cef154$3a33e730$ae9bb590$@rosenlaw.com> <20131205204126.GB26699@redhat.com> Subject: Re: New versions of CC licenses X-KeepSent: B2E27470:B66B29D0-85257C38:0082534C; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: legal-discuss@apache.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3FP4 Septem 15, 2011 Message-ID: From: Jeffrey Thompson Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 18:57:09 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML063/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.3FP2 ZX853FP2HF5|February, 2013) at 12/05/2013 18:57:12 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; Boundary="0__=0ABBF6ABDF11D5DC8f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBF6ABDF11D5DC" Content-Disposition: inline X-TM-AS-MML: No X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13120523-5806-0000-0000-000023998BFA X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --0__=0ABBF6ABDF11D5DC8f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBF6ABDF11D5DC Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Richard Fontana wrote on 12/05/2013 03:41:26 PM: > > The component is still AVAILABLE under the > > AL2.0 license and C and take advantage of those rights if it > chooses to do so, > > but as between B and C, the license agreement to the derivative > work does not > > need to include the language of AL2.0. > > I agree with this. What I don't see is how CC BY is different. > ... > It does not say: > > You may provide additional or different license terms and condition= s > for use, reproduction, or distribution of the Work, provided Your > use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies > with the conditions stated in this License. > > I believe that is significant. But, its not really significant. There is no rule in copyright license= s that says that you can't pass on fewer rights than you received. If yo= u think that there is, then you need to provide a cite. A statute. A ca= se. A section reference to Nimmer on Copyrights. Anything. Please. But, until you have something, we're just spinning our wheels here. > It restricts the terms of the license grant for the CC BY > material. The Apache License 2.0 restricts the terms of the license > grant for the Apache License 2.0 material. The Apache license does not (except for the general requirement that yo= u can't pass on more rights than you received). See my plea above. > > But he/she/it cant restrict the original license as to the originally= > licensed component, unless the original license allows this. B can't change the terms under which B received the code and can't nega= te the existence of the public offer from A that C can take advantage of (assuming it was indeed a public offer), but B can certainly limit what= rights it grants to C (at least as between B and C). I'm willing to discuss actual legal principles if you have cites to them. But just repeating a belief about a legal topic isn't going to help. Jeff Counsel, IBM Software Group= --0__=0ABBF6ABDF11D5DC8f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBF6ABDF11D5DC Content-type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com> wro= te on 12/05/2013 03:41:26 PM:
> >                The co= mponent is still AVAILABLE under the
> > AL2.0 license and C and take advantage of those rights if it =
> chooses to do so,
> > but as between B and C, the license agreement to the derivati= ve
> work does not
> > need to include the language of AL2.0.
>
> I agree with this. What I don't see is how CC BY is different.
= >
...
> It does not say:
>
>   You may provide additional or different license terms and c= onditions
>   for use, reproduction, or distribution of the Work, provide= d Your
>   use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise c= omplies
>   with the conditions stated in this License.
>
> I believe that is significant.

But, its not really significant.  There is no= rule in copyright licenses that says that you can't pass on fewer righ= ts than you received.  If you think that there is, then you need t= o provide a cite.  A statute.  A case.  A section refere= nce to Nimmer on Copyrights.  Anything.  Please.  But, u= ntil you have something, we're just spinning our wheels here.


> It restricts the terms of the license grant for the CC BY
> material. The Apache License 2.0 restricts the terms of the licens= e
> grant for the Apache License 2.0 material.

The Apache license does not (except for the genera= l requirement that you can't pass on more rights than you received). &n= bsp;See my plea above.  

>
> But he/she/it cant restrict the original license as to the origina= lly
> licensed component, unless the original license allows this.

B can't change the terms under which B received th= e code and can't negate the existence of the public offer from A that C= can take advantage of (assuming it was indeed a public offer), but B c= an certainly limit what rights it grants to C (at least as between B an= d C).  I'm willing to discuss actual legal principles if you have = cites to them.  But just repeating a belief about a legal topic is= n't going to help.

Jeff
Counsel, IBM Software Group= --0__=0ABBF6ABDF11D5DC8f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBF6ABDF11D5DC--