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 17:26:42 GMT
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But they do not publish ONLY executables if the license requires otherwise.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


Mime
View raw message