Subject: RE: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL
From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:20:20 -0800

yep.  /LR

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@reutershealth.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:38 AM
> To: Brian Behlendorf
> Cc: Lawrence E. Rosen; rms@gnu.org; license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL
> 
> 
> 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.  
> 
> This is why BSD-licensed code can be incorporated into 
> proprietary binary works, e.g.
> 
> (IANAL, TINLA)
> 
> -- 
> It was impossible to inveigle           John Cowan 
> <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
> Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> Into offering the slightest apology     http://www.reutershealth.com
> For his Phenomenology.                      --W. H. Auden, 
> from "People" (1953)
> 

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3