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 20:26:42 GMT
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> 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.

In English, "may not...if", equates roughly to "may.. except when".
It is the "except when" that is problematic here.

And now that the license is published, it is NOT up to Creative
Commons.  Even in the unlikely event that we got a clarification that
contradicted what the license says AND contradicts years of what the
CC folks have said to date, Jim has correctly indicated that we would
take a conservative view and avoid passing this problem onto
downstream consumers.

> 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.

Since we have been around and around this before, I'll summarize:

Sam and numerous others: the ASF won't pass on any additional
conditions that might affect our downstream consumers (be they vendors
of proprietary works, or foundations that produce Free software with a
capital F).

Larry: but the ASF won't be the one that is sued!

Louis and Gervase: the MPL is FOSS software, and that condition is
incompatible with the MPL.

Independent of the apparent disagreement between Larry and Louis and
Gervase; nobody has asserted that the ASF would be in violation of the
license terms; it always has been considerations of the affect on
downstream consumers that have motivated the third party license
policy.

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

- Sam Ruby

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


Mime
View raw message