Re: Monta Vista software license terms

[Derek Fawcus]

On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 01:30:21PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:46:33 -0500, [e-mail] wrote:
> >On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:18:39 PST, David Schwartz said:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >So you don't even get the right to *CREATE* a derivative work unless
> >it's
> >explicitly given to you.  So you're back to the GPL (clause 2) -
> 
> 	I already addressed this. There is no way to use source code other 
> than to create derivative works.

  [ ... ]

> 	As I already explained, you don't need this clause to give you the 
> right to distribute modified works because this right is the simple 
> sum of rights you already have.
> 
> 	You already have the right to produce derivative works. You already 
> have the right to distribute the original work. You already have the 
> right to distribute the modifications. Your recipient already has the 
> right to use and possess the original. There is no additional right 
> to the original work for this section to give you. The right it seeks 
> to give you is the simple sum of rights you already have.

and I gave you (off list) details of why this fails wrt UK law.

16(1)(a) reserves copying,  16(1)(b) reserves redistribution,
and 16(1)(e) reserves adaption,  together with copying and
redistributing adaptions.

So taken together they have removed all of the above,  and require that
one has a licence to do so.

Then 50C gives back some limited rights wrt computer programs.  Namely
that one can make such copies and adaptations as one needs in order to
use the program.  However,  importantly it does _not_ give back any
redistribution rights,  so they still require a licence.

This should meet your requirement for a jurisdiction who's law limits
what your are suggesting.

Hence to redistribute a program with patches applied needs a licence.

DF