So the "AFL" no longer applies to the derived work, is that what you are saying?
So I can do whatever I want with my derived work, from a "AFL" work, licensing my derived work in any terms I want, and people using the derived work will not be bound by conditions of the "AFL" but by my terms only? --- John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3