Re: [License-discuss] BSD license, source distributions and interpretations of "retain"
On 10/01/15 18:16, Michael Bradley wrote: > Now suppose Project B’s source code is derived from Project A’s > source code, but the maintainer of Project B wishes to use a > different license. What do you mean by "use"? Do you mean "use a different license for project B when distributed as a whole", or do you mean "actively prevent bits of project A which are in, and have been modified by, project B from being used under the license of project A (e.g. by reincorporation into the upstream)"? > In an effort to avoid confusion, Project B has > that different license text at the head of each of its source code > files, while Project A's original license text has been moved off to > a file bundled in Project B's source distributions, e.g. > “licenses/ORIGINAL-PROJECTA-LICENSE.txt”. > > Would that be in compliance with the “retain” language in clause #1 > of the 3-Clause BSD license? Clause 1 and Clause 2 are differently worded; clause 2 says "in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution", and clause 1 does not. That suggests to me that clause 1 therefore is _not_ satisfied with "in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution", if that's not the case already for the source in question, but needs to be left on each file. > Is there any case law to that effect or > to the contrary? References to legal write-ups on this question (or > similar) would be appreciated. I can't help you with actual legal advice, I'm afraid. Gerv ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] BSD license, source distributions and interpretations of "retain"
On 10/01/15 18:16, Michael Bradley wrote: Now suppose Project B’s source code is derived from Project A’s source code, but the maintainer of Project B wishes to use a different license. In an effort to avoid confusion, Project B has that different license text at the head of each of its source code files, while Project A's original license text has been moved off to a file bundled in Project B's source distributions, e.g. “licenses/ORIGINAL-PROJECTA-LICENSE.txt”. Would that be in compliance with the “retain” language in clause #1 of the 3-Clause BSD license? Is there any case law to that effect or to the contrary? References to legal write-ups on this question (or similar) would be appreciated. This is not legal advice, but in my opinion the least B could get away with is the inclusion of a reference to the file in the source files derived from A, and possibly also a statement that the file cannot be redistributed without the licences file. Especially given the shortness of the BSD licence, I would think the community expectation would be that the source file contained the text of both licences, indicating who owned the copyrights under each. The paragon would be to also identify in the code which bits came under which copyright. If B had not created any new copyright in the file, e.g. they did no more than change some customisation parameter, I would say the file should only contain A's copyright notice, and licence terms. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] BSD license, source distributions and interpretations of "retain"
On 2015-01-10 at 12:16:04, Michael Bradley wrote: > Would that be in compliance with the “retain” language in clause #1 of the > 3-Clause BSD license? Is there any case law to that effect or to the > contrary? References to legal write-ups on this question (or similar) > would be appreciated. This may be useful: https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html Francois -- Francois Marier identi.ca/fmarier http://fmarier.org twitter.com/fmarier ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] BSD license, source distributions and interpretations of "retain"
Suppose Project A is licensed under 3-Clause BSD, and includes that license text at the head of each of its source code files. Now suppose Project B’s source code is derived from Project A’s source code, but the maintainer of Project B wishes to use a different license. In an effort to avoid confusion, Project B has that different license text at the head of each of its source code files, while Project A's original license text has been moved off to a file bundled in Project B's source distributions, e.g. “licenses/ORIGINAL-PROJECTA-LICENSE.txt”. Would that be in compliance with the “retain” language in clause #1 of the 3-Clause BSD license? Is there any case law to that effect or to the contrary? References to legal write-ups on this question (or similar) would be appreciated. Best regards, -- Michael Bradley, Jr. @michaelsbradley ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss