Scope of copyright on derivative works

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 9/28/07, Chuck Swiger <chuck at codefab.com> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 2007, at 2:32 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote:
> > I take it then that you believe the "conditions" in the license
> > include
> > the "permission" therein, and that that "permission" is included in
> > "this list"?
>
> "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> are met:" is a grant of permissions, contingent upon retaining the
> text of the copyright, terms, and disclaimer.
>
> Yes.

I gather that Mr. McCoy suggests that "must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer" doesn't
say that you must retain the text preceding the ":" sign (and that ":"
sign itself may not be retained as well).

Meaning that what you must retain is just

----
Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>

All rights reserved.

- Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

- Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

- Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its
contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
this software without specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
"AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR
CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR
PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
------

i.e. Mr. McCoy suggests that you can hide the permission regarding
redistribution of modified source and/or binary forms, I suppose.

>  (For what it's worth, I had more difficulty parsing your
> question than the text of the BSD license.)

:-)

+1

To Mr. McCoy: please print out this paper

http://opensourcelaw.biz/publications/papers/BScott_BSD_The_Dark_Horse_of_Open_Source_070112lowres.pdf

and read it in bed this night. Just a suggestion.

regards,
alexander.

--
"PJ points out that lawyers seem to have difficulty understanding the
GPL. My main concern with GPLv3 is that - unlike v2 - non-lawyers can't
understand it either."
                           -- Anonymous Groklaw Visitor