License compatibility of MS-PL and MS-CL (Was: (RE: Groklaw's OSI item (was: When will CPAL actually be _used_?))
chris at metatrontech.com
Wed Aug 29 22:21:46 UTC 2007
Just one clarification here.
Chris Travers wrote:
> Ok. here is my view of the sublicensing issue and why it doesn't apply
> in this case. In a literary work, an author may grant a publisher the
> right to sublicense the work. This means that the publisher would now
> be able to grant additional permissions to third parties. In most
> cases, the BSDL code has been released publicly and this license
> granted to the public as a whole. In short putting it under the GPL
> is redundant and moot (grants no further permissions nor takes away any).
The clarification I would add here (IANAL) is that there might be cases
where the above does not apply. For example if I don't make my code
available to the public under the BSDL, the GPL might apply to my work
as a real sublicense. In short, the key here would be publication of
the code to the public under that license. In the absence of such
publication, sublicensing could be a legitimate question.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 171 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the License-discuss