Hi John, John Cowan <[email protected]> writes:
> Let me quote the definition of AND from SPDX 2.2.2: > > If required to simultaneously comply with two or more licenses, use the > conjunctive binary "AND" operator to construct a new license expression, > where both the left and right operands are a valid license expression > values. > > For example, when one is required to comply with both the LGPL-2.1-only or > MIT licenses, a valid expression would be: > > LGPL-2.1-only AND MIT > > > However, in the general case the terms under which a derivative work is > licensed do not include the license terms of the original work. For > example, if Alice writes a book and licenses Bob to make a movie from it, > the licensing terms of the movie are chosen by Bob, and have nothing to do > with the terms of Alice's license with Bob (unless Alice so requires). > AND, therefore, is inapplicable. If Alice uses a strong copyleft license > like the GNU GPL, then she is imposing such a requirement, but if she > chooses a weak copyleft or "copycenter" license, there is no such > requirement. I see! I'm not a lawyer, so the "general case" is a bit fuzzy to me; when is an original work considered "modified" or "altered" enough to be considered a derivative and not a simple combination? -- Thanks, Maxim
