On 06/02/2017 04:55, Tim Makarios wrote:
Okay, but if Carlos also distributes B, unchanged, then he's also a
distributor of B, but not an author of it. If B is released (and Carlos
distributes it) under, say, the Apache licence, then the Licensor is
disclaiming warranties of title and non-infringement, among other
things. But when Carlos distributes B, who is the Licensor, Carlos, or
BB?
If Carlos distributes B, then the licensor is BB.
But Carlos can create C, that is a derivative works of B. C can use 100%
B, and C can be different from B only in the name of the product, and in
the displayed copyright notices, so minor parts. We agree that C is in
practice B with a different name. But C is using B, and BSD and ISC
license allow this.
So Carlos is the distributor of C, and not B, because it is distributing
a "different" product with a different name, copyright holder and maybe
license.
In case of Apache License there is the 2. point:
"Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor
hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge,
royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare
Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and
distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form."
so you can sublicense for sure C.
As usual, I'm not a lawyer/expert, so my 2 cents.
Regards,
Massimo
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
