[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

On 2004-06-06 23:37:16 +0100 Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org> wrote:

No reason. But that isn't necessarily what the clause in question says. It is ambiguous; it could be interpreted in one of several ways. One of which
is OK, and another which is very not-OK.

I do not agree that "OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVision or by a third party" is ambiguous. Perceptions of ambiguity posted so far seem to be based on misunderstandings of basic copyright principles, such as thinking that only one entity may have copyright interest in a work, or simple paranoia.

If people are objecting to another phrase, I apologise. However, nothing in the above phrase seems to be an assignment. I suspect "retain" was used cautiously to avoid any question about that, as you cannot "retain" something which was not yours before. The copyright of new work in the derived work would be held by its author and need specific assignment before it could be "retained" by them.

Even so, if there is third-party material in "the donated Source Code" for which OpenVision doesn't hold the copyrights, then there is a problem with using this licence. I don't think anyone has claimed that is the case yet that I have read.

We've had cases previously where a licensor has interpreted a licence in common use as a DFSG-free licence in a non-free manner; can you give any solid reason why that could not be an issue in this case?

No, any licensor may be insane. I doubt we check all of them, unless they cause trouble. Until then, we take what they write at face value. Can you give any solid reason why this should be different? This level of paranoia would probably paralyse debian and I can't see many people wanting it.

We have a licence
which (AFAIK) we've never seen before, with an ambiguous clause, and some of us would like to take the diligent path and disambiguate it. Why do you
have such a problem with that?

I think this is not getting clarification on an ambiguous clause, but asking the copyright holder for a free basic copyright lesson. Do not be surprised if they react badly.

My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Help hack the EuroParl! http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/eurovote/

Reply to: