On 4/25/17, 9:59 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi, > >> If Justin takes Adobe-owned code and relicenses it > >Alex it was you who relicensed it from MIT to Apache so I would not be >relicensing it just keeping the original license it was under. Again, you assuming this is a derivative work. Let's suppose that Google redefined the externs format to look like this: #List of Symbols That shouldn't be renamed CreateJS CreateJS.DisplayObject CreateJS.DisplayObject.prototype.addChild ... And I committed this file to our repo. Would you still insist that it is a derivative work? Adobe Legal says it is a new work, and thus it can be separately licensed. > >INAL and Adobe may own the copyright on the patch, but if it's considered >just a list as you say then they probably don’t (non creative items like >lists can’t be copyrighted is my understanding) so I’m not sure how you >can have it both ways. Could you explain? Either way they certailly don’t >own the copyright of the original code. If I write a book about CreateJS and list some of the APIs of CreateJS, the pages I wrote do not need the CreateJS license and I could license it how I want to. It would be different if I copied their actual implementation or modifications of their implementation. > >Again INAL but I think you may be missing Ray's point that the contents >of the file (including the comments retained by the patch) would still be >under MIT license. That irrespective of it it’s treated as code or not. >Anyway let see what Roy replies with and go with that. Roy and everyone else were not informed that Adobe Legal determined that the file is a new work and not a derivative work because it is a list, so of course the came to the right conclusion for a derivative work. Fundamentally, I took the time to get a real legal opinion. -Alex
