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 Sat, 01 Aug 2015 18:29:04 GMT
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


Mime
View raw message