Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
And anyone who has a copy of W+X or W' has two licenses, one from Person
A (for that part that was W) and one from Person B (for W+X or W').
Person A is not responsible in any respect for W+X or W'.
The key question: If Person C who has W' sues Person A for patent
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Brian Behlendort wrote:
All IMHO, and IANAL, coz I get burned every time I post here
these days...
Are you afraid I'll slap you 'aside the head? Relax :-)
Let's say I'm trying to be more cognizant of my own lack of formal legal
training,
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
Answers interspersed. /Larry
-Original Message-
From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:20 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'Bjorn Reese'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL
Lawrence E.
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?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 12 March 2003 02:46 pm, Andy Tai wrote:
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,
The trademark clause in the AFL merely states that Neither the names of
Licensor, nor the names of any contributors to the Original Work, nor
any of their trademarks or service marks, may be used to endorse or
promote products derived from this Original Work without express prior
Andy Tai scripsit:
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
Alex Russell scripsit:
So long as your license terms do not contradict the license you received the
original work under (the AFL), this is my understanding of the situation.
Well, contradict is fuzzy. It can be licensed under terms that are
completely different from the AFL's: for example, it
Mr. Rosen, why don't you put your statement referenced
below into the AFL, stating that
You are permitted to create derived work and relicense
such work under any license terms of your choice, and
I waive all my rights in regard to all such derived
work, including the requirements of this
- Original Message -
From: Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The biggest point in this whole discussion is this simple
fact: if I do not insert either a must-publish or a must-supply
clause in my license they can (and probably will) claim that
their source is
- Original Message -
From: David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My only point in entering this debate was to point out that the
license restrictions suggested by Abe Kornalis do reflect that legal
precedent and also reflect the desires of other software authors.
Restricting the rights
- Original Message -
From: Chris F Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My only point in entering this debate was to point out that the
license restrictions suggested by Abe Kornalis do reflect that legal
precedent and also reflect the desires of other software authors.
Restricting the rights of
- Original Message -
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chris F Clark scripsit:
Clearly the FSF has decided that hording of software by corporations
(as long as they don't distribute it) should be one of their freedoms.
The same applies to individuals. Do you want to be
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Abe Kornelis wrote:
-- You raise a touchy point. I'll give you two replies.
1) Any solution that I would provide would equally apply to
terrorist groups. Replace the Chinese dissidents with
Al-Qaeda members - their situations are comparable
Brian,
First, as to the Mutual Defense provision and its compatibility with
the GPL:
Person A writes W and licenses it to everyone under the AFL. Person B
comes along and, in the true spirit of free software, creates and
distributes collective work W+X and derivative work W' under the GPL.
No
yep. /LR
-Original Message-
From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:38 AM
To: Brian Behlendorf
Cc: Lawrence E. Rosen; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL
Brian Behlendorf scripsit:
Andy Tai wrote:
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
Mr. Rosen, why don't you put your statement referenced
below into the AFL, stating that
You are permitted to create derived work and relicense
such work under any license terms of your choice, and
I waive all my rights in regard to all such derived
work, including the requirements of this
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
And anyone who has a copy of W+X or W' has two licenses, one from Person
A (for that part that was W) and one from Person B (for W+X or W').
Person A is not responsible in any respect for W+X or W'.
*Sigh*. OK, now I get it. W+X and W' has *two* licenses, one each to
Sorry for copying large segments; I have a feeling we're talking past each
other, and I want to try to avoid that.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
First, as to the Mutual Defense provision and its compatibility with
the GPL:
Person A writes W and licenses it to everyone under
Brian Behlendorf scripsit:
My common-sense, non-lawyer brain says that if person B says W+X or W' are
under the GPL, it's really GPL to Person B plus AFL to Person A. It
appears to be Stallman's opinion, and it would be mine as well, that this
cannot be the case, as the GPL prevents
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
*Sigh*. OK, now I get it. W+X and W' has *two* licenses,
one each to two different parties. The terms of *both* must
be followed by Person C.
My common-sense, non-lawyer brain says that if person B says
W+X or W' are under the GPL, it's really GPL to Person B
It's not you, the AFL copyright holder, who can choose not to
care. It's Jimmy Q. Gplauthor, whose copyright is infringed
by having a derivative work (the GPL+AFL code) distributed
under more restrictive terms than the GPL.
Huh? Is Jimmy == Person A, Person B or Person C? Keep your
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
*Sigh*. OK, now I get it. W+X and W' has *two* licenses,
one each to two different parties. The terms of *both* must
be followed by Person C.
My common-sense, non-lawyer brain says that if person B says
W+X or W'
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
It's not you, the AFL copyright holder, who can choose not to
care. It's Jimmy Q. Gplauthor, whose copyright is infringed
by having a derivative work (the GPL+AFL code) distributed
under more restrictive terms than the GPL.
Huh? Is
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
It's not you, the AFL copyright holder, who can choose not to
care. It's Jimmy Q. Gplauthor, whose copyright is infringed
by having a derivative work (the GPL+AFL code) distributed
under more restrictive terms than the GPL.
Huh? Is Jimmy == Person A,
Under
U.S. trademark law, anyone can say I've built a derivative work of
Apache without using Apache's good name, or yours, to endorse or
promote their software.
It looks like use of Apache's good name to me. If it isn't what it
looks like, I guess these words are not clear.
The key question: If Person C who has W' sues Person A for
patent infringement, does that void his license to do things with W'?
If C sues A for patent infringement, C can no longer copy, modify or
distribute W, or W+X, or W', because his license to do those things with
W
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
SCENARIO: Several faculty members at Prestigious University have created
a marvelous new package that takes input from a keyboard and displays it
on a monitor faster than any program ever has before. They decide to
release it to the public under
30 matches
Mail list logo
