Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

On 01/27/2017 05:42 AM, David Woolley wrote: > On 18/01/17 15:26, John Cowan wrote: >> Pace David Woolley, it is not only the *changes* but the *entire* >> derivative work of which you are the copyright owner. Of course you >> cannot prevent the making of other derivative works under license from

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

On 18/01/17 15:26, John Cowan wrote: Pace David Woolley, it is not only the *changes* but the *entire* derivative work of which you are the copyright owner. Of course you cannot prevent the making of other derivative works under license from the original author. That doesn't seem to be the US

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

On 18/01/2017 16:26, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote: B's license is very flexible in terms of where the attribution notice maybe placed. > As long as C puts it in the documentation or other materials provided with the distribution, it will be in compliance. Yes now I agree with this view.

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

On 18/01/2017 16:26, John Cowan wrote: it is not only the *changes* but the *entire* derivative work of which you are the copyright owner. Ok. The original copyright owner of A gave me the rights to use A, so I used A for producing B (also a mere "copy"), and then I'm the copyright owner of

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote: I would caution that many seemingly ordinary words can take on a different > or more specific legal meaning in court. Indeed. From Dorothy Sayers's novel _Unnatural Death_: 'You are too easily surprised,' said

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:50 AM, Massimo Zaniboni < massimo.zanib...@asterisell.com> wrote: Sincerely I don't fully understand this sentence. Are you saying that if > license A allows me to use, modify and distribuite the code of product A > (like BSD, and ISC are saying), then is it implicit by

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

On 18/01/2017 09:01, David Woolley wrote: Not entirely true. Only significant changes are owned by B. De minis and obvious changes don't attract an independent copyright. Ok. More generally on this topic, the requirement to include the copyright and licence in the permissive licences is

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

On 17/01/17 16:44, Massimo Zaniboni wrote: every change to A made by B is automatically owned by B author, thanks to Berne Convention Not entirely true. Only significant changes are owned by B. De minis and obvious changes don't attract an independent copyright. More generally on this

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

On 17/01/2017 17:44, Massimo Zaniboni wrote: "relicensing" is implicitely permitted by Berne Convention [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention], and so the license text had no to repeat this. ... ehm a better version of the phrase: "The Berne Convention states that changes made to a

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

On 17/01/2017 16:13, Massimo Zaniboni wrote: On 17/01/2017 15:31, Kevin Fleming wrote: Apache/MIT/GPL specify explicitely how you can relicense derived works: * in GPL you mus apply the same GPL license also to derived works * in MIT/Apache you can freely relicense the derived work, until

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

On 17/01/2017 15:31, Kevin Fleming wrote: In general 'permissive' vs. 'non-permissive' applies to the obligation to publish source code, not the obligation(s) to reproduce copyright and license notices. Yes, but not only this. Copyleft licenses like GPL define *also* the license on which

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

In general 'permissive' vs. 'non-permissive' applies to the obligation to publish source code, not the obligation(s) to reproduce copyright and license notices. It is generally assumed that nearly all licenses will incur some sort of attribution obligation, including 'permissive' licenses. On

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

On 13/01/2017 22:54, Massimo Zaniboni wrote: "Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies." ... or more succintly, if we have

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

On 13/01/2017 20:29, John Cowan wrote: When the BSD/ISC/MIT licenses say that you must include the text of the license in derivative works, that's exactly what is meant: the words of the license must be provided as part of the documentation. It does not mean that they must be incorporated into

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

On 13/01/2017 19:36, Chuck Swiger wrote: On Jan 13, 2017, at 10:05 AM, Massimo Zaniboni wrote: I tried interpreting the terms of common permissive licenses following a "step by step" approach, like if they were instructions in programminng code, and I found

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Massimo Zaniboni < massimo.zanib...@asterisell.com> wrote: Probably I'm wrong, but I'm curious to understand where. So if someone has > the patience to read the post, can report here a fault part of my > reasoning, so I can understand better and maybe discuss?

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

source.org>] On Behalf Of Chuck Swiger > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 10:37 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org <mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common > permissive licenses > > On Jan 13, 2017, at

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

rom: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Swiger Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 10:37 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses On Jan 13, 2017, at 10:05 AM, Massimo Za

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

On Jan 13, 2017, at 10:05 AM, Massimo Zaniboni wrote: > I tried interpreting the terms of common permissive licenses following a > "step by step" approach, like if they were instructions in programminng code, > and I found with my big surprises that doing so

[License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

Hi, I tried interpreting the terms of common permissive licenses following a "step by step" approach, like if they were instructions in programminng code, and I found with my big surprises that doing so they became non permissive licenses, or permissive licenses only using some "border-line"