OT (Re: [Approval Request] BSD-Lite license)

[[MOc]cda*mirabilos]

> Suppose that A creates an original work a, and then B (who holds
> a proper license from A to do so, namely the BSD), creates a
derivative
> work b.  Then B is the copyright owner of b, and may license it
however
> she pleases, provided she has no contrary obligations imposed by A as
> a condition of his license.

> It is B's license, and only B's license, that controls what
> can be done with b in a copyright sense.  A's license may require
> B to provide a copy of itself along with b, but that does not
> make A's license effective over b, because A is not the copyright
owner of b.

But parts of b because b is derivate(a);

> Consider in particular the command-line FTP client provided with
> Windows.  This is a proprietary binary program, and it is covered
> exclusively by the Windows EULA.  The fact that part of its
> source code is covered by the BSD license is neither here nor there;
> downstream licensees are strictly forbidden to pick out
> the compiled code that corresponds to the BSD source, since
> the EULA forbids decompilation.

It's a pity that they left out PASV and RETR functionality, but included
(!)
the original SCCSID strings...
(the latter I didn't test in ftp.exe but pax.exe which is part of NT
because NT is an UNIX(R))

cu
-mirabilos


--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3