On December 11, 2018 7:54:16 PM UTC, Eloi Notario <[email protected]> wrote: >El 11/12/18 a les 9:53, Giacomo Tesio ha escrit: >> [...] >> 2. If ExtJs was a Derived Work of a software release under the >Hacking >> License, Sencha would have no right to keep any version proprietary. > >Being Sencha the copyright owner (noting for clarity as I cut that from >the quote), I am quite skeptical this argument will hold at least under >Spanish law and probably under all those jurisdictions where the >"Public Domain" concept is not acknowledged because no author rights can be >waived. This includes the right to decide how -and if- a work is to be >distributed.
As should be clear in the text you quoted, I was talking about an hypothetical ExtJS that was - a Derived Work - of a software under the Hacking License This, just like with the GPL, would bind them to distribute their Derived Work under the same License that they received it. Also, in no way the Hacking License put the covered work under public domain (and if you read it this way, I would really appreciate if you can explain your interpretation so that I can clarify the text). The non-exclusive copyright assignment doesn't waive any right, just shares the transferable ones with upstream copyright holders "to the extent permitted by law" and under the license conditions (if the upstream copyright holders violate such conditions they lose such rights). Giacomo
