Nick Yeates asked: > Larry did not state *why* he advises use of this licensing strategy > from a business, social or other standpoint.
I do so because my clients expect to profit (either financially or in reputation credits) for delivering comprehensive solutions that include FOSS components. That's a business and social good. They are entitled to choose their own license for their collective works or compilations. I don't care a fig for the claims of GPL licensors that everything that touches their code must be under the GPL, although please don't accuse me of trying to infringe their works. I insist that my clients honor the demands of GPL licensors that THEIR components be under an enforceable GPL. That is why I want to see software companies fully disclose the FOSS components (and licenses) in their software, even as they distribute the overall programs (including perhaps its proprietary parts) under licenses of their choice. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Office: 707-485-1242 Linkedin profile: http://linkd.in/XXpHyu -----Original Message----- From: Nick Yeates [mailto:nyeat...@umbc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:35 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright & RHEL contract >From http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/RH-3573_284204_TM_Gd.pdf > At the same time, the combined body of work that constitutes Red HatR > Enterprise LinuxR is a collective work which has been organized by Red > Hat, and Red Hat holds the copyright in that collective work. Bradley Kuhn wrote at 15:46 on Monday: > . It's admittedly a strange behavior, > and I've been asking Red Hat Legal for many years now to explain > better why they're doing this and what they believe it's accomplishing. Larry Rosen wrote at 23:28 on Thursday: > I often recommend that licensing method to those of my clients who > combine various FOSS works into a single software package. It isn't > odd at all. Even if GPL applies to one or more of those internal > components, there is no need to license the entire collective work > under the GPL. We've even distributed GPL software as part of collective works under the OSL. I too am curious what this "compilation license"ing is and what its benefits are. Mr Kuhn asked, and Larry responded saying basically 'its not so odd - I use it often' and Larry did not state *why* he advises use of this licensing strategy from a business, social or other standpoint. 1) Why larry? 2) What is the "standard" way of doing this? How do most other org's license many works together? Full disclosure: I work for Red Hat, though am writing this from my personal account and perspective. I am a beginner on my knowledge into OSS license details, so please realize that I am attempting to learn. I could go and ask around in my company about this, yet I would rather engage with the community on this for now. -Nick Yeates _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss