Scope of copyright on derivative works

[Chuck Swiger]

On Sep 28, 2007, at 3:59 PM, Wilson, Andrew wrote:
>> You refer to the OSI-approved ASPL (found here: http://
>> www.opensource.org/licenses/apsl-2.0.php)?
>
> No, I refer to the proprietary Mac OS X end user license, since it is
> common knowledge that Mac OS contains large amounts of code
> derived from BSD OS.

I see.  Pretty much everything derived from the BSD projects remains  
source-code available from Apple here:

   http://www.apple.com/opensource/
   http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html

>> Sure-- but these additional Ts and Cs apply only to such
>> modifications, and possibly to the resulting dual-licensed derivative
>> work considered as a whole, assuming the modifications are
>> significant enough to merit copyright protection according to 17 USC
>> 103 or equivalent, as Larry Rosen just pointed out.  The original
>> unmodified BSD licensed code remains under the BSDL alone, and the
>> BSD license does not grant anyone the right to modify the terms of
>> the BSD license.
>
> Please quote the relevant section of the BSD copyright which forbids
> modifying the terms of the BSD license, as long as said
> modified license includes at a minimum the original notice and  
> disclaimer.
> I can't find such wording in the canonical OSI version.

Well, I just quoted all of the relevant sections in:

   Message-Id: <5A48F61E-D7B6-4B80-9964-6E01CA5FA0D5 at codefab.com>
   Message-Id: <DC32C0DA-1BCE-41DC-930F-FAEB0CC6ED4C at codefab.com>

Perhaps there is some part of "All rights reserved." and "...must  
retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the  
following disclaimer." which is unclear?  Alternatively, perhaps you  
might explain where in the BSD license text you see the right to  
change the conditions or modify the license being granted...?

> As you can tell, my view is that BSDL is effectively
> extensible in that allows licensing of derivative works under
> any license which is a proper superset of the original BSD
> copyright.

Agreed-- however, this doesn't mean you can simply change the license  
of the original work, without first modifying it and creating a  
derivative work which can then be licensed under other terms so long  
as those are compatible with the original BSD license terms.

> In the Apple case cited above, presumably the
> license which applies to Mac OS is the union of the Apple
> EULA plus any underlying BSD copyrights, /not/ a dual license
> of Apple EULA and BSD.

I'm not in a position to comment on that conclusion; in part because  
IANAL and in part because I don't claim to speak for Apple.  :-)

-- 
-Chuck