Open source licenses, using licensed source code under new licenses

Ben Tilly btilly at
Thu Apr 3 19:38:35 UTC 2008

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Ryan S. Pettigrew
<bladetooth at> wrote:
> On Apr 03, 2008, at 10:58 AM, John Cowan wrote:
> > All those licenses (assuming the CC license is CC-BY) permit the
> > creation of derivative works under any license you like, so there can
> > be no problem.
> >
>  On Apr 03, 2008, at 6:38 AM, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >  I'd strongly doubt that Apache 2.0 can be
> > relicensed BSD.
> >
>         There seems to be some inconsistency here. While I don't expect this
> contradiction to be entirely resolved here, per se, can I at least get a
> hint about what part of the Apache or BSD license is leading to conflicting
> opinions?

I'm guessing that John Cowan didn't look at the patent provisions in
the Apache 2.0 license.  It is those provisions that make the FSF and
the Apache foundation say that the Apache 2.0 license can be
relicensed GPL v3 but not GPL v2.  Since the BSD license, like the GPL
v2, has no patent protection provisions, I would think that you cannot
relicense the Apache 2.0 license BSD.

However I'm not a lawyer.  I could be wrong.  Talk to a lawyer for a
legal opinion.


More information about the License-discuss mailing list