[triage] Re: For Approval: Boost Software License - Version 1.0 - August 17th, 2003

[Zak Greant]

Hey Alexander, Greetings All,

On Sep 15, 2007, at 12:17PDT (CA), Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Derivative works belong to both "deriver" and original copyright owner
> (if any, (s) for both). Original copyright owner still owns remaining
> protected elements taken from preexisting work and there is no such
> thing as "a whole" regarding copyright on derivative works. But once
> an original copyright owner grants you the right to prepare (software)
> derivative works (i.e. you've got the right going beyond the statutory
> right to prepare private derivative works under 17 USC 117), the right
> to distribute copies of said derivative works is provided by 17 USC
> 109. No additional permission is needed. The license contract can
> restrict that default right, of course.

This is more challenging message to triage, as it supports  
Alexander's position with a theory about a complex topic.

I don't want the ticket to become a dumping ground for a rather  
detailed discussion that has already wound across multiple lists,  
discussions and years.

I also don't want to lose the discussion.

Here's what I'll do:

I'll add the statement that I believe best represents Alexander's  
position

   No additional permission is needed.

as a comment to the existing ticket for this issue:

    https://osi.osuosl.org/ticket/59

At the end of the comment, I'll add this note.

Alexander supports this position with a theory on how a grant of the  
right to prepare derivative works implicitly grants the right to  
distribute said derivative works. Discussions on this theory are  
captured on the following wiki page:
   wiki:theory/derivative-works/implicit-grant-of-right-to-distribute

This will let us capture the discussion(s) over time. If we really  
need to break things down, we can ticket individual issues in this  
discussion later on.

Cheers!
--zak