Brian Behlendorf scripsit: > But but... your AFL terms persist, so I'm not really relicensing. This > new one-byte-different derivative work is *not* under an Apache license - > one who picks up that code and follows only the Apache license may find > themselves violating your AFL license. The license on my *modification* > (that whole byte) may be Apache licensed, but not the bits derived from > your original work.
Nope. The creator of a derivative work under license is the copyright owner of the derivative work as a whole. He cannot, of course, prevent other people from making derivative works based on the same original, but he can certainly defend his own copyright. This is why BSD-licensed code can be incorporated into proprietary binary works, e.g. (IANAL, TINLA) -- It was impossible to inveigle John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Into offering the slightest apology http://www.reutershealth.com For his Phenomenology. --W. H. Auden, from "People" (1953) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3