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 10:15:25 GMT
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:


> 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

View raw message