| |||||||||||||
All rights reservedAll rights reservedPosted Jan 17, 2013 11:21 UTC (Thu) by keeperofdakeys (subscriber, #82635)In reply to: All rights reserved by corbet Parent article: A discordant symphony
Licensing a work doesn't take any rights away from the owner, it just gives a set of rights to someone else for (effectively) a copy of that work. This is why works can be dual-licensed, since the license only applies to a specific copy.
I'm not sure what conditions IBM gave to Apache for the code, but since it was a private affair, involving the owner of the work, license terms have no meaning.
(Log in to post comments)
All rights reserved Posted Jan 20, 2013 2:18 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] Licensing a work doesn't take any rights away from the owner, it just gives a set of rights to someone else for (effectively) a copy of that work. Copyright is the right to stop someone else from making a copy. If a copyright holder licenses someone to make a copy, the copyright owner no longer has the right to stop that person from making a copy. So licensing does indeed take away rights from the licensor. It's true that a license need not give up all rights under copyright. The licensor might retain the right to stop someone else from copying, which is why a second license might be possible. Incidentally, a typical copyright license does not give any rights to the licensee, in the strict legal sense of the word "right." A legal right is the power of a person to control another person. What the licensee gains is a "privilege."
|
|||||||||||||