Hi John,

John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org> writes:

> Let me quote the definition of AND from SPDX 2.2.2:
>
> If required to simultaneously comply with two or more licenses, use the
> conjunctive binary "AND" operator to construct a new license expression,
> where both the left and right operands are a valid license expression
> values.
>
> For example, when one is required to comply with both the LGPL-2.1-only or
> MIT licenses, a valid expression would be:
>
> LGPL-2.1-only AND MIT
>
>
> However, in the general case the terms under which a derivative work is
> licensed do not include the license terms of the original work.  For
> example, if Alice writes a book and licenses Bob to make a movie from it,
> the licensing terms of the movie are chosen by Bob, and have nothing to do
> with the terms of Alice's license with Bob (unless Alice so requires).
> AND, therefore, is inapplicable.  If Alice uses a strong copyleft license
> like the GNU GPL, then she is imposing such a requirement, but if she
> chooses a weak copyleft or "copycenter" license, there is no such
> requirement.

I see!  I'm not a lawyer, so the "general case" is a bit fuzzy to me;
when is an original work considered "modified" or "altered" enough to be
considered a derivative and not a simple combination?

--
Thanks,
Maxim