MPL 2 section 11

Lawrence Rosen lrosen at rosenlaw.com
Fri Nov 26 18:13:39 UTC 2010


Carlo Piana wrote:
> I respectfully submit that it is not for a definition of what "open
> source" to advocate a particular interpretation of the law or indeed to
> establish -- via licensing approval rules -- a change in the applicable
> law.

I fully agree with Carlo, and so I also don't think we need to debate the
precise wording of a new OSD # 11 to clarify the law.

When we draft or approve open source licenses, however, and when we write
FAQs explaining those licenses, we should make sure that our words reflect
our common understanding of that law. That is what this thread is about: A
combination [1] is not the same as a derivative [2] work, and our licenses
shouldn't imply so. 

/Larry

[1] combination: mixture; an association of different things or factors, or
the act of mixing them.

[2] derivative: derived thing; an idea, language, term, or other thing that
has developed from something else that is similar to it.

See also 17 USC 101: A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more
preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement,
dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording,
art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a
work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial
revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a
whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlo Piana [mailto:osi-review at piana.eu]
> Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 11:27 PM
> To: license-review at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: MPL 2 section 11
<snip>





More information about the License-review mailing list