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
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 05:28:48PM -0500, Mark W. Alexander wrote:
Hi all,
Has the net-snmp license (http://www.net-snmp.org/COPYING.txt) been
specifically OSI approved or rejected. It's bsd-like, but OSI
certification goes a long way towards selling it to management as safe
to use.
Really
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
Ann W. Harrison wrote:
[...]
In this example, the commercial tool would probably be a
single executable and not a set of libraries or plug-ins.
To my understanding, that's similar to a User's Guide to
Version 9 based on, extending and correcting the Guide
for Version 8.
To my uneducated
Err.
Eclipe.org legal FAQ
I meant http://www.eclipse.org/legal/legalfaq.html.
To: Ann W. Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:RE: Initial Developer's Public License
Ann W. Harrison wrote:
[...]
In this example, the
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
Alexander Terekhov scripsit:
To my uneducated understanding, that's similar to
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0387954015
To me, this book is a mere aggregation of papers/works
with some glue (start up code, etc ;-) ). Aggregation
doesn't make this whole book [just like the
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
I sent the following in the past (see the Sept 2003 archive) and
never really got a reply. I figured I'ld try again with a slightly
reformated message.
=
Section 1
-
The Lucent Public License version 1.0 was approved in 2003.
Since then we've been using it to
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
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Richard Schilling wrote:
I post my response because so many times on this list people try to
play armchair lawyer and pick apart a license. It's not
appropriate
Richard,
Could you please point me to this list charter or guidelines?
You seem to imply that only
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
Richard Schilling scripsit:
The WTO countries are supposed to recognize US copyright, as the US is
supposed to recognize the IP of the other WTO countries. Easier said
then done, but it's there.
Indeed. But are the Berne countries supposed to recognize our *non*-copyrights?
The U.S. as an
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 Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 09:59:40AM -0500, David Presotto wrote:
I sent the following in the past (see the Sept 2003 archive) and
never really got a reply. I figured I'ld try again with a slightly
reformated message.
=
Section 1
-
The Lucent Public
John Cowan wrote:
[...]
Native executables aren't simply collections, however; linkers
break up and redistribute the individual object files into
different regions of the executable.
Do you seriously believe that such details/linking analysis
[whether this or that linker redistributes the
Alexander Terekhov scripsit:
The resulting *compilation* is copyrightable. I think the
distinction compilation-vs-derivative is rather obvious.
Whereas I think the distinction is very subtle and full of borderline
cases, of which the native executable is just one.
First thing you learn when
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Cowan wrote:
[...]
Native executables aren't simply collections, however; linkers
break up and redistribute the individual object files into
different regions of the executable.
Do you seriously believe that such details/linking
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
On 2004.02.13 08:35 Alex Rousskov wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Richard Schilling wrote:
I post my response because so many times on this list people try to
play armchair lawyer and pick apart a license. It's not
appropriate
Richard,
Could you please point me to this list charter or
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
Ian Lance Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The arguments that the GPL is invalid are totally bogus.
I need to qualify that by saying that I'm referring to the arguments
which have appeared recently on the license-discuss list.
There are other theories that the GPL, while valid, does not have
Richard Schilling scripsit:
Look, folks the entire purpose of a license of any kind is to have
something to present to a judge in case something goes wrong, and to
clarify what rights are transferred to the end user. The true test of
a license (for open source work in a business) is what
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
[...]
I think it is a pretty big stretch to say that static linking
does not produce a derivative work of the objects included in
the link. ...
With all those $$ legal funds to protect open source of lately,
I just wonder whether the time is right for some
Look, folks the entire purpose of a license of any kind is to have
something to present to a judge in case something goes wrong, and to
clarify what rights are transferred to the end user.
... and since the user is often not a lawyer, those who write licenses
should try to strike a balance
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
[...]
I think it is a pretty big stretch to say that static linking
does not produce a derivative work of the objects included in
the link. ...
With all those $$ legal funds to protect open source of lately,
I
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
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
[...]
Who would benefit from taking such an action?
The Global Economy, of course.
For a free software organization, the upside is minimal,
and the downside is severe.
Really? I see nothing wrong if a free software organization
would have to adopt some EULA (to
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
With all those $$ legal funds to protect open source of lately,
I just wonder whether the time is right for some
vendor-neutral organization to bring the issue of linking
into court. It could
be a friendly, relatively-inexpensive summary judgment action,
oder? Just an idea.
Courts
35 matches
Mail list logo
