www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Luis Villa <l...@lu.is>
Subject Re: dependency on CDDL binary
Date Wed, 02 Mar 2016 14:50:52 GMT
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.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>

Mime
View raw message