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 Sat, 01 Aug 2015 15:29:41 GMT
Sam Ruby wrote:
> My conclusion is that it is common practice for commercial companies 
> to include components made available under what we have called 
> "Category A" into their proprietary products and release only executables
> of their products.

I have no problem with companies releasing executables. Every FOSS license allows that. But
they do not publish ONLY executables if the license requires otherwise.

Sam cited this as an example: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/internet-explorer/third-party-code-notice.
Wherever the FOSS license requires it, Microsoft in that file points to the source code! As
they should. As we should. Microsoft and most other vendors write excellent third party notices
in the equivalent of their NOTICE file. I'll bet that, from that NOTICE file alone, any experienced
engineer could find the PUBLISHED (not hidden) source code for every one of those third party
FOSS products. If only our Apache NOTICE files were as well written.

Greg Stein wrote:
> If we bundled MPL-licensed *source* alongside/within our releases, then
> a downstream user would need to understand changes *to that part*
> needs to be published. But we don't want *any* demand for publication.
> For anything we provide.

Who is this royal "we" that Greg refers to? They aren't HIS third party licenses, and most
of it isn't HIS Apache software, so where does he get a veto about using FOSS software? 

David Beberman wrote:
> I would say the answer to your original question is to look at the
> Wall St. firms.  Sounds like a good place to start.

Maybe we should start by suing Greg for encouraging copyright infringement with binary-only
distributions and no NOTICE files?  :-) 

Sam Ruby wrote:
> Either each and every one of them -- including their lawyers -- is misreading 
> the licenses, or the OSI is incorrect in that these licenses don't conform to the
> OSD definition, or Larry's reading the OSD definition is incorrect.

I hope those aren't the only choices. That's why I'm encouraging their lawyers to tell you
you're wrong.

/Larry


-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net] 
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2015 3:15 AM
To: Legal Discuss <legal-discuss@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Creative Commons BY 4.0 license compatible?

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:50 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
> On Jul 31, 2015 5:28 PM, "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>>
>> Larry Rosen wrote:
>>
>> > > [2] See OSD #2, "The program must include source code, and must 
>> > > allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form...."
>>
>> Sam Ruby responded:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> I believe that you are misreading that OSD provision. Apache and 
>> other software is FOSS. We *always* publish source code as our licenses require.
>> So should everyone else who distributes it. Are you aware of any FOSS 
>> software that is entirely hidden and not available somewhere in 
>> source form for free?
>
> Yes, Larry, lots of it, although they must observe any notification 
> requirements in the various licenses.

I will confirm that there are plenty of examples within my employer.
And plenty of examples within companies purchased by my employer.
Larry started a new thread, asking for examples, I will provide one here that is not related
to my employment:

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/internet-explorer/third-party-code-notice

> The ASF was founded on the principal of providing software to 
> developers, who can do with it anything they wish, including not 
> publishing the resulting work, whether forked or used verbatim from 
> the ASF.  I think you are confusing our goals with the goals of the 
> FSF and similar.  We will not confer such license restrictions on downstream licensees
of ASF works.

My conclusion is that it is common practice for commercial companies to include components
made available under what we have called "Category A" into their proprietary products and
release only executables of their products.

Either each and every one of them -- including their lawyers -- is misreading the licenses,
or the OSI is incorrect in that these licenses don't conform to the OSD definition, or Larry's
reading the OSD definition is incorrect.

Based on Larry's reading of the OSD definition, I can see why he feels that there there is
no need for categories.

- Sam Ruby

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


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


Mime
View raw message