To be really clear, because I can see room for misunderstanding - my
mental context for this is the larger scope regarding how contributors
retain rights.
Therefore I do think that a copyright holder has a say in a VM using
Harmony's modules insofar that the copyright holders contribution is
involved, and further, the license of VM doesn't respect the terms under
which the copyright holder licensed the contribution to the creator of
said VM.
I hope that's clearer.
geir
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Dalibor Topic wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
, that that can
lead to no end of confusion over the actual license of a VM using
modules from Harmony, if the SableVM developer believes to have a
say in
it.
No I would say that it cannot, since that sablevm developer would
at a minimum
have licensed the software under the apache license to apache, and
then apache
would have licensed that software to the end user under the apache
license, and
what that means is rather clear.
It's not clear at all to me from reading the ASL2, so let's spell
it out: Would such a hypothetical developer have a say in the
license of a VM using Harmony's modules or not? Cliff?
No.
I thought about this for a second more - the apache license is a
license from each contributor of their contribution to the licensee,
so I would guess that yes, any contributor could hypothetically have
a say on what a licensee does w/in the boundaries of their contribution.
no, hold it, this is not true. Once you give a perpetual license, you
can't revoke it. If you own some code, you can relicense it under
different conditions, but since the license that you had before was a
OSI license it gives other the ability to fork.
I wasn't suggesting that you could revoke it.
My thoughts were along the lines of what the apache license says - that
each contributor gives each recipient some rights for their contribution
according to the terms of the license.
If a recipient does not follow the terms of the license, what prevents
any of the contributors from taking action, since the license is between
each contributor and the recipient. The ASF is *a* contributor too, and
therefore can take action because we have standing, but why can't each
each contributor act independently if the terms of the license are
violated for their particular contribution?
I dunno. I am not a lawyer, and I'm really tired :)
The ability to fork is what saves users from copyright holders going
wacko and changing the license in 'less then open source'.
Which means that you might own some code, but you don't own its usage
dynamics once you enter an OSI/free-software licensing scheme.
Except if the terms of the license under which you provided the code
aren't followed, right?
geir
