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 19:22:50 GMT
Sam Ruby said that Creative Commons would have to remove the following text from CC-BY:
> "No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose any additional
>  or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological
>  Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the
>  Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material."

I don't read it that way. I define "if" as in English. But that is entirely up to Creative
Commons, not either of us. 

I will continue to assert that any distributor of FOSS software whose license promises the
source code can't meaningfully apply Effective Technological Measures to the binary and have
anyone care. 

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
"If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill."


-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net] 
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2015 12:05 PM
To: Legal Discuss <legal-discuss@apache.org>; Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Subject: Re: Creative Commons BY 4.0 license compatible?

On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Returning back to the discussion at hand, if CC-BY 5.0 were willing 
>> to drop the anti-DRM provision (perhaps simultaneously releasing a 
>> CC-BY-NO-DRM license?), I see it as likely that both the Mozilla 
>> Foundation and Apache Software Foundation would find the result to be 
>> compatible with their respective licenses.
>
> Victory!
>
> BTW, I don't believe there is any effective NO-DRM provision to be implied, stated expressly
or allowed in CC-BY or any FOSS license. (See OSD.)  But that is for Creative Commons to discuss
when Diane Peters returns from vacation.

You may not believe so, but the following from the Creative Commons web site[1] indicates
that the Creative Commons organization feels
otherwise:

"CC licenses do not allow licensees to use DRM to prevent other licensees from taking advantage
of the freedoms the licensor granted."

Just so that we are on the same page, here it the text that would need to be removed from
the CC-BY cover page:

"No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that
legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. "

And here is the text that would need to be removed from the license:

"No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms
or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material
if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material."

If these sections of text were removed, I see it as likely that the resulting license would
be considered to be category A by the Apache Software Foundation, and viewed as compatible
with the MPL by the Mozilla Foundation.

I don't see it as likely that any clarification by Diane concerning the existing license would
change things.

> /Larry
>
> Lawrence Rosen
> "If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill."

[1] https://creativecommons.org/tag/drm

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net]
> Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2015 11:29 AM
> To: Legal Discuss <legal-discuss@apache.org>; Lawrence Rosen 
> <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
> Subject: Re: Creative Commons BY 4.0 license compatible?
>
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>> Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> Microsoft is under no obligation to release the source code to any of their modifications.
>>
>> Unless that component's FOSS license sets a reciprocal condition, which we would
know from the NOTICE file.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> Why don't you ask Microsoft to answer this question? They are here and their lawyers
are extremely capable.
>
> First, I did not ask a question.  Second, as you point out above, there is no need to
ask Microsoft anything, as everything we need to know is contained in the NOTICE file.
>
> Recapping: you started by saying that no FOSS license has any restriction on distribution
of a Larger Work.  I responded that the MPL is an example of a license that defines the term
"Larger Work" and places conditions upon what you can and can not do if such a larger work
contains code licensed under the MPL.
>
> You followed up with a "so what" (that's a direct quote), and asked if we knew of any
examples where these conditions prohibited something a vendor actually is doing.  I provided
an example.
>
> So while this distinction may not matter to you personally, it is demonstrably important
to many.  It is indeed possible that each and every one of them misunderstand the licenses
involved, but I see that as rather unlikely.
>
> Returning back to the discussion at hand, if CC-BY 5.0 were willing to drop the anti-DRM
provision (perhaps simultaneously releasing a CC-BY-NO-DRM license?), I see it as likely that
both the Mozilla Foundation and Apache Software Foundation would find the result to be compatible
with their respective licenses.
>
>> /Larry
>>
>> Lawrence Rosen
>> "If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill."
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net]
>> Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2015 10:27 AM
>> To: Legal Discuss <legal-discuss@apache.org>; Lawrence Rosen 
>> <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
>> Subject: Re: Creative Commons BY 4.0 license compatible?
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> A small clarification: when you say "the source code", what you presumably are referring
to is the upstream source code on which the code that was included in Internet Explorer was
originally based on.
>> That code may have been modified by Microsoft, and in fact the original code may
bear little resemblance to the code that actually is included.  Microsoft is under no obligation
to release the source code to any of their modifications.
>>
>> - 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
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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