www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: dependency on CDDL binary
Date Wed, 02 Mar 2016 15:03:31 GMT
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Luis Villa <luis@lu.is> wrote:

> Note, though, that it explicitly does not grant patent rights, so likely
> less appropriate for software.
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:36 AM Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On Mar 1, 2016, at 1:09 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > Regardless of the requirement, I think a tenet we should apply is that
>> we provide our users with the licensing information relevant to the bytes
>> we send their way.
>> >
>> > For example, there's no requirement with public-domain, or
>> zlib-licensing, to inform a user of the license, but we would/should still
>> do so.
>> >
>> > Note that with public domain, it is not recognized in all jurisdictions,
>> > and some public domain works carry a "backup" permissive license
>> > as a backstop for those users.  I had just added one such case for
>> > the APR project to its LICENSE file.
>>
>> Agreed. It is for this reason that Creative Commons has
>> created their own "public domain" license to serve as
>> just such a backup.
>>
>
Putting a "published" work in the public domain has no impact on patent
rights, AIUI.  Public Domain is a statement on the copyright claim of the
work.  The ASF sublicenses and includes many BSD works, for example,
which also offer no patent license.

Mime
View raw message