Ken Brown wrote:
Ex: I own a piece of property...but at anytime, anybody in the General
Public can use it, dig it up, change it, etc. How can you say I have
ownership of the property?
I know you've already given up - but just answer the questions below.
If I build a jungle-gym in my front
Brendan Hide r sez:
If I build a jungle-gym in my front yard and tell the neighbourhood that
their children can all use it - whose is it? If I also say that the
parents can make additions to it to make it safer or more exciting -
who is the owner after they've made these changes?
As was
Brendan,
Its tough to debate this, particularly because a court has not ruled on any
of this ever, so much of the discussion is conjecture. John Cowan et. al
are trying to sell you that if you or any other software developer
distribute your work under the terms of the GPL, you will be able to
Ken Brown scripsit:
John Cowan et. al
are trying to sell you that if you or any other software developer
distribute your work under the terms of the GPL, you will be able to take a
user to court for distributing or modifying your work in a manner that you
disagree with.
Sure you will.
Urm... I forgot to CC this to the list.
I think I see your point. The real problem comes in when the original
copyright owner does not participate in development. If I create A, and
somebody else uses it to create B, I can use B to make A better. If my A
is the first to be used by the
It's called the GPL because it assigns certain rights to everyone, not because
it makes everyone (or some abstract entity called the general public)
the owner.
Legally, a GPL-covered work is copyrighted and has certain copyright
holders. For certain purposes, it makes a difference
I'm going to propose a change the Open Source Definition at our board
meeting next Thursday. It is simply this:
0) A license may not restrict use or modification of a lawfully
obtained copy of a work.
Anybody have problems with this? Does this have any problems?
--
-russ nelson
My only concern is how this would interact with Larry's new license.
Thanks
Bruce
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
On Friday 25 October 2002 02:43 pm, Russell Nelson wrote:
0) A license may not restrict use or modification of a lawfully
obtained copy of a work.
Anybody have problems with this? Does this have any problems?
Several of the licenses have conditions on the -public- modification of the
work.
* Bruce Perens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
My only concern is how this would interact with Larry's new license.
Well I was thinking about GPL on libraries since that restricts what you
are allowed to link the library against; (No I'm not trying to get into
an argument about the merits or not of
Russell Nelson scripsit:
I'm going to propose a change the Open Source Definition at our board
meeting next Thursday. It is simply this:
0) A license may not restrict use or modification of a lawfully
obtained copy of a work.
What about verbatim copying? Seems to me that shouldn't be
* Russell Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I'm going to propose a change the Open Source Definition at our board
meeting next Thursday. It is simply this:
0) A license may not restrict use or modification of a lawfully
obtained copy of a work.
Anybody have problems with this? Does this
I'm going to propose a change the Open Source Definition at our
board
meeting next Thursday. It is simply this:
0) A license may not restrict use or modification of a lawfully
obtained copy of a work.
Does OSI certify open documentation licenses?
If so, I recall there being optional
Do you really mean:
A license may not restrict use or modification by the possessor of a
lawfully obtained copy of a work.
On the other hand, this provision, either your wording or mine, might
conflict with the following provision in the OSL:
5) External Deployment. The term External
From: Dr. David Alan Gilbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well I was thinking about GPL on libraries since that restricts what you
are allowed to link the library against; (No I'm not trying to get into
an argument about the merits or not of this).
Copyright law spells out a number of rights, including
Ralph Mellor writes:
PS. I haven't been able to thru to http://www.opensource.org
for an hour or so. Packets seem to be stuck in San Jose...
Yes, Brian Behlendorf's server was not healthy earlier today. I'm
sure that he's working on fixing it.
Oh, and I only CC'ed Bruce Perens because he
Some thoughts on onwership relationships and remedies from OZ -
This relationship of ownership could be one that arises in equity as well as
copyright - the custodians (or at least the project coordinator) have a
fiduciary obligation to others in the group - upon breach of the GPL where
a
John Cowan wrote:
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
You own a copy of the software under a license from the copyright and
patent holders.
Why the horror quotes? Ownership is not absolute _alodium_, right enough,
but subject to the copyright owner's enumerated interests, ownership
of a
In the struggle of authors and other creators versus
publishers and other old world content distribution
industries, the creators' side takes recourse on many
occasions to the notion of moral rights as found in the
Civil Code tradition associated with France. The content
industries are perfectly
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
From: Graham Bassett [EMAIL PROTECTED],
There is authority to show that, at least by analogy, equity could
allow such specific performance. Multiple developers could be joined
in an action or the open community or communities who have overseen
the
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
From: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED],
I'm going to propose a change the Open Source Definition at our board
meeting next Thursday. It is simply this:
0) A license may not restrict use or modification of a lawfully
obtained copy of a work.
Anybody
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
Sorry to post an OT message, but I wanted to know if other subscribers
that post here get a return message from the Assawompset mail system
something like this (headers appear to be legitimate):
- The addresse had permanent fatal errors -
22 matches
Mail list logo
