www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject RE: Creative Commons BY 4.0 license compatible?
Date Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:11:09 GMT
Greg Stein proposed:

> Larger Works that demand a source code release is against our desires.


Demand what you are willing to give! Larger Works containing Apache code already impose such
conditions *for that Apache code* within them. :-) 


4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works
thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided
that You meet the following conditions: ...


All FOSS licenses contain conditions. Almost all FOSS licenses require some level of attribution
or NOTICE file that will lead licensees to the source code *for that FOSS-licensed code*.
That's the stuff we care about. No FOSS licenses are allowed to restrict licensee actions
or impose conditions *on Larger Works* [1] or binary executables [2].


All FOSS licenses work that way, with the possible exception of the GPL licenses under the
"static linking" doctrine.




[1] See OSD #1, "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the
software as a component of an aggregate software distribution...."


[2] See OSD #2, "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source
code as well as compiled form...."



From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 4:49 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org; Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Subject: Re: Creative Commons BY 4.0 license compatible?


On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com <mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
> wrote:


> I'm merely stating that that is a restriction, and that that restriction is not present
> in the Apache License, Version 2.

It is not a restriction on anything at all.

The MPL license demands that you comply with the Firefox terms and conditions, just as the
Apache License demands that you comply with the Apache terms and conditions. But they are
both FOSS licenses!


Great. Let's reword the underlying statement of the ASF's position on this matter:


"The ASF does not want any downstream users to have demands imposed upon them, beyond those
of ALv2."


That same wording can be used to delineate Category A and B licenses. And that wording *is*
the current policy of the Foundation. ... Larger Works that demand a source code release is
against our desires.





View raw message