Subject: Re: BSD-like licenses and the OSI approval process
From: "Alexander Terekhov" <>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 00:31:25 +0200

On 10/12/07, John Cowan <> wrote:
> Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
> > For one thing, I could trivially avoid the whole issue in the world
> > of permissive software licenses by making a non-trivial expressive
> > change (such as affixing my beautiful logo to your BSD-licensed work)
> > to create a derivative work.
> Granted.  I'll exclude that case in my discussion following.
> > Furthermore, the fact that I enable someone to drill down to and copy a
> > specific page in my collective work doesn't make the collection itself
> > any the less a copyrightable collective work.
> I'm not so sure that it's copyrightable as a collective work: it doesn't look
> original enough for a U.S. copyright.  You mechanically chose what went in
> (based on Web-wide search engines) and you mechanically ordered them (in
> some fashion or other).  Looks like a white pages to me, albeit with full
> text.
> > That person's copy of the individual page was copied from my work that
> > he received under the terms of my collective work license, AFL 3.0
> > (to which he assented!).
> Is it really true that the maker of a collective work (a collection of
> essays, say) has an action for breach if I copy any one essay without
> permission?  The author of the essay does for sure.
> > Finally, in my case I'm not intending to assert any copyright interest
> > specifically in the page he copied by drilling down, because it remains
> > under the BSD license--as well as, under the authority of the BSD
> > license--under AFL 3.0.
> Ah, but that's the bad bit.  The AFL3 begins by saying that it applies
> to any original work of authorship whose owner has placed certain words
> adjacent to the copyright notice.  But the owner (that is, the original
> author) has done nothing of the sort.  You have, but why am I bound by
> what you say?
> > My copyright interest, as you suggest, does not extend to your
> > BSD-licensed work. But I read your BSD license as giving me permission
> > to distribute your work under any license I choose, including AFL 3.0,
> > as long as I copy the text of your BSD license in the source code.
> What's the source of your ability to do that?



"PJ points out that lawyers seem to have difficulty understanding the
GPL. My main concern with GPLv3 is that - unlike v2 - non-lawyers can't
understand it either."
                      -- Anonymous Groklaw Visitor