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: Creative Commons BY 4.0 license compatible?
Date Fri, 31 Jul 2015 19:25:10 GMT
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> 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. :-)

For some values of "such conditions".  Attribution?  Certainly.
Anti-DRM or share-alike restrictions?  Nope.

>> 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.

That's one of the things we care about, certainly.

> No FOSS licenses are allowed to restrict licensee actions or impose conditions *on Larger
Works* [1] or binary executables [2].

Here we disagree.  More below.

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

All FOSS licenses put some conditions/restrictions/prohibitions on
distributions.  Some license more than others.

> /Larry
> [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...."

Agreed when we are talking about pure aggregation -- for example
placing two distinct an unrelated components on the same compact disk
and mailing it to a friend or customer.

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

Now we get to an important point.  That's a constraint on *US* if we
wish to conform to the OSD.  The OSD does NOT require us to place that
constraint on those that license code from us.  This is an important
point, as the Apache License, Version 2.0 (like MIT, BSD, X11, etc)
does NOT include that restriction.

For example, a third party can take software made available under the
Apache License, Version 2.0, modify it, add to it, and release the
results in only compiled form.  They only need to comply with our
license (including, for example, by making available the relevant
portions of the NOTICE file).

By contrast, if a third party takes software made available under the
MPL, modifies it, and adds to it, they need to make available their
modifications not only in source form, but under terms compatible with
the MPL.

And as a third example, if a third party takes software made available
under the GPL, modifies it, and adds to it, they need to make
available not only their modifications but also any software that
links to it in source form, and under terms compatible with the GPL.

- Sam Ruby

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

View raw message