Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law
| < Day Day Up > |
| There is a very important explicit exception to the CPL's reciprocity obligation: Contributions do not include additions to the Program which: (i) are separate modules of software distributed in conjunction with the Program under their own license agreement, and (ii) are not derivative works of the Program. ( CPL section 1.) Does this have the same effect as the GPL? Instead of the ambiguous language of the GPL and LGPL that causes so much uncertainty about linking, the CPL offers two simple tests for exclusion from reciprocity. Both must be true:
Anyone can get around the reciprocity obligation of the CPL by both (1) creating a separate module of software and (2) making sure that separate module of software isn't a derivative work . As I will describe in Chapter 9, the OSL and AFL licenses do not include the first element of this exclusion from reciprocity. The MPL's concept of files and the CPL's concept of separate module of software are not included in the OSL and AFL. All one must do to avoid reciprocity is to avoid creating a derivative work. Of course, that is not nearly so simple a change as I make it seem. I defer until Chapter 12 the technical discussion about how courts determine whether derivative works have been created. |
| < Day Day Up > |