From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 6 19:07:24 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: chat@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A01F816A41F for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 19:07:24 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from garys@opusnet.com) Received: from opusnet.com (mail.opusnet.com [209.210.200.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 641E043D48 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 19:07:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from garys@opusnet.com) Received: from localhost.localhost [70.98.246.232] by opusnet.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.05) id A8E172CF0080; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:07:13 -0700 Received: from localhost.localhost (localhost.localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localhost (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j86J95jU056107; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 12:09:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from garys@opusnet.com) Received: (from jojo@localhost) by localhost.localhost (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id j86J8rgS056104; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 12:08:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from garys@opusnet.com) To: "Jeremy C. Reed" References: From: garys@opusnet.com (Gary W. Swearingen) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:08:53 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Jeremy C. Reed's message of "Tue, 6 Sep 2005 09:28:49 -0700 (PDT)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) XEmacs/21.4.17 (Jumbo Shrimp, berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: new project, old license X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:07:24 -0000 "Jeremy C. Reed" writes: > The situation: a project is reusing a BSD style licensed code and is relicensing their changes with the same license. > > The original license had the "AS IS" disclaimer that specifically mentioned the project's name. > > Is it acceptable to rewrite to say ... IS PROVIDED BY THE foo AND bar PROJECTs "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS ... > > Or should it just include two copies of the copyright and license which are identical other than the project names? > > Or should it just keep the old project name in the "AS IS" disclaimer? Of course we can't give legal advice and must send people to qualified lawyers for that. But we may discuss our understanding of law. Keep in mind that if derivative B includes IP which is owned and licensed by A, then two parties share ownership of derivative B. 17-USC-103 says: The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, ... But since a BSD-style license says nothing about sub-licensing (allowing the derivative licensor to act as original licensor's agent, I suppose) and asks for retention of license text, I conclude that third parties can only use the derivative with the license (figuratively and literally) of both owners. (So, for example, when GPL users derive from BSD-licensed works and then say the work is GPL'd, they are wrong, to put it politely.) The requirements of the orginal BSD-style license are simple and don't include anything about including the licensor's name in derivative licenses or modifying the original's license. I'll not comment on the merits and risks of prospective violations of a BSD-style license. And, unfortunately, it can be impractical to get a custom license from some "projects". It would normally be "nice" to include some verbage somewhere (like in the derivative license) that goes beyond the original copyright notice in explaining who owns what, the more detailed the better. Another thing to keep in mind is that the ownership might still be shared even in derivative code written only by the second party, if it would be considered derivative. That's a murky subject, but sequels to blockbuster novels or movies provide a clear example of the principle. (One might ask if another license is needed from the first party to cover his ownership in new derivative code. I think that logic requires it, but courts probably wouldn't, saying its covered by the clear intent of the original badly-written license. Speaking of badly-written, note that the license doesn't even require its first paragraph to be retained in redistributions, though, of course, such omission wouldn't change the terms of the license, just the redistribution of it. :-)