www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: LICENSE and NOTICE for EXE and DMG files
Date Fri, 12 Jun 2015 19:57:16 GMT
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 2:42 AM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/11/15, 4:37 PM, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
>>
>>We have to obey all of the requirements of all of the bits in the
>>distribution
>>that might be copyrighted, including our own and anyone else's.
>>How that is accomplished, precisely, depends on all of those bits.
>>
> Interesting.  I thought an application wasn’t a derivative work because
> (from the AL):
>
>     "Derivative Works shall not include works that remain
>     separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of,
>     the Work and Derivative Works thereof.”
>
> Now one of the downloaded libraries we link to is BSD and BSD doesn’t seem
> to be so clear on how they define derivative works.

Forgive me, but I think you are starting at the wrong place.

Some licenses will place additional restrictions based on how the
"bits" are used.  Some don't.  Those that do will generally define the
terms used by those definitions.

The place to start is with the license in question, not with
definition of term that may relevant to other licenses.

Here is an example of a license that does not depend on what
definition you may use for 'derivative work':
http://www.wtfpl.net/about/

BSD's "three clauses" are clear.  The second one is specific to binary
redistributions.

- Sam Ruby

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


Mime
View raw message