Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

[John Cowan]

Brian Behlendorf scripsit:

> But but... your AFL terms persist, so I'm not really relicensing.  This
> new one-byte-different derivative work is *not* under an Apache license -
> one who picks up that code and follows only the Apache license may find
> themselves violating your AFL license.  The license on my *modification*
> (that whole byte) may be Apache licensed, but not the bits derived from
> your original work.

Nope.  The creator of a derivative work under license is the copyright owner
of the derivative work as a whole.  He cannot, of course, prevent other people
from making derivative works based on the same original, but he can certainly
defend his own copyright.  

This is why BSD-licensed code can be incorporated into proprietary binary
works, e.g.

(IANAL, TINLA)

-- 
It was impossible to inveigle           John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Into offering the slightest apology     http://www.reutershealth.com
For his Phenomenology.                      --W. H. Auden, from "People" (1953)
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3