On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote: >> A distributes a program developed by A based on Sun RPC to B. B >> cannot turn around distribute the program to C unless they repackage >> it as a product or program developed by B. > > This isn't the case: A may "license or distribute it to anyone [..] > as part of a product or program developed by [A]", and thus may > provide a license to all comers, including C.
The fact that A can distribute and provide a license to all comers isn't the issue. The issue is whether B can legally distribute to C. A strict reading would seem to preclude this, but if someone can dig up where the copyright holder said MIT/X11+restriction, that would indicate that someone goofed in the phrasing and didn't really mean all of the implications of 'developed by the user.' It definetly wouldn't be the first time that someone wrote a legal document that could be read one way when they really meant it to mean something different. Don Armstrong -- Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. -- Robert Heinlein http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
pgpSbbNMQ33S9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
