On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 03:27:52PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So Americans can ignore the civil-servant version of the NOSA license with
impunity, but not so Australians.
Depends. If there are patent rights then no. NOSA covers more than
just copyrights. I don't believe there's a
Brian Behlendorf scripsit:
So what happens when I download the code under a FOIA/public domain issue,
and then relicense under a BSD license? Don't I have the right to
relicense PD works?
You can do anything you want to with a public domain work except try to assert
a valid copyright on it,
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian Behlendorf scripsit:
So what happens when I download the code under a FOIA/public domain issue,
and then relicense under a BSD license? Don't I have the right to
relicense PD works?
You can do anything you want to with a public domain
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian Behlendorf scripsit:
So what happens when I download the code under a FOIA/public domain issue,
and then relicense under a BSD license? Don't I have the right to
relicense PD works?
You can do anything you
Brian Behlendorf scripsit:
So I have no right to create a derivative work of a public domain work and
release that derivative work under a license of my choice? For example, I
can not take PD code and incorporate it into Apache httpd? I must
misunderstand what public domain means, then.
Oh
You can do anything you want to with a public domain work
except try
to assert a valid copyright on it, which is one of the incidents of
the BSD or any other open-source license. So, no.
So I have no right to create a derivative work of a public
domain work and release that
So I have no right to create a derivative work of a public
domain work
and release that derivative work under a license of my choice? For
example, I can not take PD code and incorporate it into
Apache httpd?
I must misunderstand what public domain means, then.
Oh yes, you can do
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
I don't think so, John. Anyone can do ANYTHING to a public domain work. No
license is required, whether it is to do plastic surgery or simply to put on
lipstick. If anything, the proper question is whether the degree of
creativity in the derivative work is
Alex Rousskov writes:
- If NASA wants to kindly ask users to register, license is
not the right place to do that. NASA should change the
license before OSI approves it (a simple quality control
issue)
On the other hand, if NASA wants to require redistributors to
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Russell Nelson wrote:
Alex Rousskov writes:
- If NASA wants to kindly ask users to register, license is
not the right place to do that. NASA should change the
license before OSI approves it (a simple quality control
issue)
On the other hand,
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Richard Schilling wrote:
I believe that is a misguided concept in open source licensing that
some hold to. Tracking the use of a product does not make a license
non-open source. Open Source licensing deals with accessibility and
cost, but tracking, per se, is not
On 2004.02.12 20:42 Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Richard Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Such provisions are not allowed in an open source license.
Reporting
requirements are viewed as unreasonable limitations on the rights
of
licensees to do anything they want internally with open source
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 12:05:08AM -0800, Richard Schilling wrote:
The OSI can do what it wants. My preference is to see all discussions
the OSI endorses regarding licenses be done in the context of
legitimate legal analysis (which is done by lawyers) and well trained
laypeople.
You mean
Maybe it's just me, but I keep getting back to open source software
licenses as a means to efficiently distribute software and allow people
ready access to the knowledge it represents, and not so much as a
mechanism to try a get license-savvy organizations to let their guard
down.
On
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 01:09:47AM -0800, Richard Schilling wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but I keep getting back to open source software
licenses as a means to efficiently distribute software and allow people
ready access to the knowledge it represents, and not so much as a
mechanism to try a
Ben Reser wrote:
[...]
But seriously I don't think there is an OSI certified license
that includes an indemnification clause.
Hmm. IPL/CPL section 4?
regards,
alexander.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 12:05:08AM -0800, Richard Schilling wrote:
I'm just saying that a stance that NASA, a US government agency with
deep pockets, should remove imdenification wording is a haneous
idea. And in general bashing the license on non-licensing issues
doesn't do any good. It
Mark W. Alexander scripsit:
NASA legal counsel doesn't seem to be aware of the Title 17 restrictions
on government works. Policy cannot trump Title 17 requirements.
Adherence to ii, precludes i and iii.
The actual license (is anyone looking at it but me??) says that no copyright
is claimed
Richard Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm just saying that a stance that NASA, a US government agency with
deep pockets, should remove imdenification wording is a haneous
idea. And in general bashing the license on non-licensing issues
doesn't do any good. It actually hurts open
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 09:18:30AM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
Mark W. Alexander scripsit:
NASA legal counsel doesn't seem to be aware of the Title 17 restrictions
on government works. Policy cannot trump Title 17 requirements.
Adherence to ii, precludes i and iii.
The actual license (is
Mark W. Alexander scripsit:
By my reading, Title 17 says that government works are not protected by
copyright. Period. NASA also notes that they are only under the
jurisdiction of U.S. federal law. No U.S. law does, or can, subject
government works to foreign copyright authority.
Well, I'm
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 01:00:47PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Ben Reser wrote:
[...]
But seriously I don't think there is an OSI certified license
that includes an indemnification clause.
Hmm. IPL/CPL section 4?
I guess that is an indemnification clause. But it's also pretty much
On 2004.02.13 07:38 Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
[snip]
I believe that is a misguided concept in open source licensing that
some hold to. Tracking the use of a product does not make a license
non-open source. Open Source licensing deals with accessibility and
cost, but tracking, per se, is not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But all those works were once in Australian copyright. The question is,
can a work which is born into the public domain in its country of origin
be in copyright anywhere at any time?
As far as I understand the Berne Convention, the answer is yes.
Article 5(3) of the
Arnoud Engelfriet scripsit:
Article 5(3) of the BC says: The enjoyment and the exercise of
these rights ... shall be independent of the existence of protection
in the country of origin of the work.
Article 7(1) puts the duration of protection at life+50, but
article 5(1) states that an
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Richard Schilling wrote:
I would rather know that more details about the product's use are
being tracked than not. When a company tracks the usage of their
product they have an easier time gaining support from onlookers,
which is good for the product.
I want to write
F. In an effort to track usage and maintain accurate records of the
Subject Software, each Recipient, upon receipt of the Subject
Software, is requested to register with NASA by visiting the following
website: __.
Note that each recipient is
Bryan,
Thanks for your detailed explanation of the reasons for your new license. I
haven't read the license itself yet, but I want to comment on the supposed
differences you identified between the NASA license and other
already-approved licenses:
i. NASA legal counsel requires that
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Bryan Geurts wrote:
1H. Recipient means anyone who acquires the Subject Software under
this Agreement, including all Contributors.
1M. Use means the application or employment of the Subject
Software for any purpose.
3F. In an effort to track usage and maintain
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
iii. NASA policy requires an effort to accurately
track usage of
released software for documentation and benefits
realized?purposes. See 3.F.
Such provisions are not allowed in an open source license. Reporting
requirements are viewed as
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note the wording requires an effort to accurately track. It is
the effort, not the tracking, that is mandatory, and indeed the
draft NOSA requests rather than requires users to register with
NASA.
If the intent is to show an effort, the
(just to the list)
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note the wording requires an effort to accurately track. It is the
effort, not the tracking, that is mandatory, and indeed the draft NOSA
requests rather than requires users to register with NASA.
Does this really belong in
The NASA license as proposed may be against the law in
many locations. For example, in Taiwan the
Constitution of the Republic of China is the supreme
law of the land. The NASA license demands that it is
governed by US Federal Law, which conflicts with the
ROC's sovereignty and copyright laws
O.K. - I'm going to rant. Nothing personal here Bryan, but NASA put
some good time into this so I'm going to pick apart your resonse as a
non-NASA person. Specifically, you state some views that are
misguided. So, I post my response because so many times on this list
people try to play
Richard Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Such provisions are not allowed in an open source license. Reporting
requirements are viewed as unreasonable limitations on the rights of
licensees to do anything they want internally with open source
Biggest problem of all here - who in all of
First of all general comments. I see real problems for this license in
cases where the software was written entirely by civil servents. In
such a case it can't be a bare license. It'd have to be a contract.
But if it's a contract aren't you trying to create a copyright for the
work through the
Ian Lance Taylor scripsit:
Lawrence is correctly saying that if the NASA license requires
tracking of released software, that license does not conform to the
OSD, and therefore the OSI should not bless it.
However, the NASA license does *not* require it.
--
Eric Raymond is the Margaret Mead
On 2004.02.12 20:05 Andy Tai wrote:
The NASA license as proposed may be against the law in
many locations. For example, in Taiwan the
Constitution of the Republic of China is the supreme
law of the land. The NASA license demands that it is
governed by US Federal Law, which conflicts with the
38 matches
Mail list logo
