<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Jim Wright wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>> </span>And if you're a fan of strong copyleft, <br>> this might not be a preferred outcome.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I am and remain a fan of copyleft. But I'm not a fan of overreach. If "strong copyleft" implies that someone else can change the license I impose on my works, then I'm not a fan of that.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Nearly 20 years ago I had a conversation with RMS about this. We both understood that commercial companies frequently impose onerous conditions on the environments in which their software can be used. As Eben reminds us, even Nimmer approves the legality of such practices. It is possible to write copyright licenses that allow use of works only by those agile folks who can stand on their heads and whistle Dixie while running Java code under Linux. But that ain't FOSS! And even RMS understood that if he wrote a version of GPL that reached that far, he'd have no licensees.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Further to the point of this thread: Sublicensing exists. It is explicit in some FOSS licenses, disallowed in others. Neither of us will affect that reality. But you're the one proposing a new license, so I think the real question for you is: Why do you want me to allow you (a distributor) to sublicense my work given that I've already directly granted you (and everyone downstream) all 17 U.S.C. 106 rights? Remember, as Pam Chestek noted, I'd be giving up privity for this, so you should make a better case than "I want it."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>/Larry<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Lawrence Rosen<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Rosenlaw & Einschlag (<a href="http://www.rosenlaw.com/"><span style='color:#0563C1'>www.rosenlaw.com</span></a>) <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Cell: 707-478-8932 <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>LinkedIn: <a href="http://lnkd.in/D9CWhD"><span style='color:#0563C1'>http://lnkd.in/D9CWhD</span></a> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> Jim Wright [mailto:jim.wright@oracle.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 12, 2014 8:49 AM<br><b>To:</b> lrosen@rosenlaw.com; License submissions for OSI review<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [License-review] Sublicensing<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I'm not sure why the fact that *some* FOSS licenses are always directly from the original copyright holder (because that is clearly stated in the license terms) necessarily dictates that this is the case for *all* FOSS licenses. MIT, by example, expressly states that sublicensing is permitted (sublicensing being defined as a new license issued by a licensee rather than the original copyright holder). Others are silent on the issue and commonly interpreted to permit it.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>While a downstream recipient may be unable to avoid the conditions of the license if that's how it's drafted, the existence of conditions or pass-through terms in a license does not mean that permitted sublicenses must otherwise duplicate the entire set of terms and rights of the original license. (In a commercial licensing context, sublicenses of more limited sets of rights are often expressly contemplated, this is commonplace and I don't think the point is controversial…)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>So if it's the case that sublicensing is permitted at least in some cases, why is that a good thing rather than a bad thing? Well, it seems to me to be what allows the mechanics of copyleft license compatibility to work at a fundamental level - if I cannot sublicense a copy of an MIT licensed header file to a subsequent recipient under the GPLv2, I don't know how I can include that header file in a GPLv2 licensed c file and then distribute the compiled object file and corresponding source, because the recipient of the combined module needs to get "each and every part" under the GPLv2. If you can't sublicense, strong copyleft becomes materially more difficult to navigate, at least on some execution platforms. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I understand the perspective that as long as you're distributing the source and notices to everything, few will complain, but that doesn't mean no one will - and beyond that, if we foster an environment where copyleft requirements are not subject to strict compliance as long as all the source is released, maybe that's ok, but it seems to me this may cultivate a culture which weakens the strength of how copyleft licenses are interpreted and implemented generally, which will bleed over into commercial use as well to the extent it hasn't already. And if you're a fan of strong copyleft, this might not be a preferred outcome.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> Best,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> J<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Sep 11, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Lawrence Rosen <<a href="mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com">lrosen@rosenlaw.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Hi Pam,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>You raise a good point. Why would we encourage sublicensing then, if there is no privity by which to enforce the covenants in the FOSS license?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>FOSS licenses are direct from the copyright owner to the ultimate licensee. For example, GPLv3 § 10 expressly avoids sublicensing: "Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><u>a license from the original licensors</u>, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License." [Emphasis added.]<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>That give the licensor all the privity he needs to enforce his license against each and every licensee. No intermediary commercial distributor can then interfere with the freedoms or the obligations (conditions or covenants) associated with that license.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>IOW, sublicensing hurts. It doesn't help anyone except an intermediary distributor who can distribute commercial software with hidden FOSS components.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>/Larry<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>-----Original Message-----<br>From: Pamela Chestek [mailto:pamela@<a href="http://chesteklegal.com/"><span style='color:#954F72'>chesteklegal.com</span></a>]<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><br>Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 6:22 AM<br>To:<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="mailto:license-review@opensource.org"><span style='color:#954F72'>license-review@opensource.org</span></a><br>Subject: Re: [License-review] Sublicensing<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Changing subject line ...<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>On 9/9/2014 5:04 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>> Once we agree on those basic principles, then it is fair to ask<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>> whether "sublicensing" actually provides anything different or whether<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>> it is an ancient commercial licensing word that was thrown into the<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>> MIT and other licenses among the 17 USC 106 "copyright rights"<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>> actually being licensed for no important purpose.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>I believe the difference will be whether the downstream recipient is obliged to satisfy the covenants of the license versus the conditions.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>One can only sublicense the rights one has, so if the original grant has conditions on the grant, then the sublicensee will also be obliged to satisfy the same conditions. However, to the extent the license has covenants, those are a creature of contract only, and since there is no privity between the original licensor and sublicensee, the sublicensee wouldn't be obliged to satisfy the covenants.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Pam<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Pamela S. Chestek, Esq.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Chestek Legal<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>PO Box 2492<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Raleigh, NC 27602<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>919-800-8033<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><a href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>pamela@chesteklegal.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><a href="http://www.chesteklegal.com/"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>www.chesteklegal.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>PGP key 246A430A<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>License-review mailing list<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>License-review@opensource.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><a href="http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'>_______________________________________________<br>License-review mailing list<br><a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org"><span style='color:#954F72'>License-review@opensource.org</span></a><br><a href="http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review"><span style='color:#954F72'>http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></div></body></html>