RE: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application Server)
Well, the PHP License is not in the OSI-approved list, this is true. However, the disclaimer part is included in the Apache License (which is approved), so the disclaimer should not be the problem. And of course it's not the problem as we have been discussing it... You've brought up a good point, of course. The disclaimer *should* protect me (or a distributor) in cases where I (or a distributor) were sued, but I have taken the time to read through all of the past posts on this list, including yours, and the gist of what I have found is that the disclaimer cannot be considered in a court of law unless the person knowingly read the disclaimer, and from what else was said in the list, it sounds like including it as part of the license does not suffice for that purpose. Is this still the general consensus? Personally, I can't imagine a scenario where I (or a distributor) could be liable for any damage caused by the use of eNetwizard; any damage caused would be from some one using the package in a manner in which it was never intended, but of course, that does not stop some one from suing... I've been giving much thought to this, because eNetwizard is entirely code-based, there is no installation module, so I cannot very well put it in what has been called on this list as a click-wrap! There is, however, a configuration wizard which I am designing for it which is used for the purpose of configuring the package correctly; it will not work until configured with the wizard. I could place a click-wrap there. You also brought up the point of many licenses as part of a distribution. I am giving this some thought too, because I'd love for others to distribute my package in aggregate with their own, and I will somehow make the config.wizard serve their licenses as well. This particular license is intended strictly for the core product, not necessarily extensions or addons to the package -- there are many ways to extend the product -- and these should fall under any license a person chooses, including (potentially) commercial licenses... As the disclaimer stands now, I consider it verbose! I like black and white -- straight to the point -- licenses. The more words you add the more you complicate its meaning. I understand this is important in some circumstances, but not for an open source license where I am simply trying to retain some semblance of artistic control over the package. How about an excerpt from the Common Public License... NO WARRANTY EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT, THE PROGRAM IS PROVIDED ON AN AS IS BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Each Recipient is solely responsible for determining the appropriateness of using and distributing the Program and assumes all risks associated with its exercise of rights under this Agreement, including but not limited to the risks and costs of program errors, compliance with applicable laws, damage to or loss of data, programs or equipment, and unavailability or interruption of operations. DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT, NEITHER RECIPIENT NOR ANY CONTRIBUTORS SHALL HAVE ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION LOST PROFITS), HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROGRAM OR THE EXERCISE OF ANY RIGHTS GRANTED HEREUNDER, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. -Original Message- From: Mahesh T Pai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 3:00 PM To: Robert Samuel White Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application Server) Robert Samuel White wrote: I agree that this should be changed; distributors of modified versions should be able to disclaim their liability as well. (some semantic hair splitting first) Rather, it is the disclaimer which should disclaim distributors'/modifiers' liability. Disclaimers which are part of unmodifiable licenses should not require something to be done by the distributor/modify-er. The disclaimer is only necessary because there are people out there that will sue you for anything they can and I really don't have time for frivolous lawsuits; Disclaimers do not protect you from a lawsuit. *Nothing* prevents anybody from filing a suit against you. The disclaimer protects you in the event of a suit. What would you propose? Simply removing the to the standard package part of the sentence? No, remove the first 'Robert Samuel White' from the disclaimer. That way every person who is potentially liable, including Robert Samuel White
Re: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application Server)
In one of my licenses, I use the phrase the copyright holders and contributing authors instead of my own name, in the disclaimers. The BSD license says copyright holders and contributors, and the AFL goes one step further, saying licensor, contributors, and copyright owners. (I think licensor might be important for AFL due to the embedded patent license - the licensor might have a patent on the software, and might not be a copyright holder. However this is just a guess.) I am not a lawyer, Bruce -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application Server)
Mahesh, I do not believe technically that the configuration wizard would suffice for the legal purposes the click-wrap is designed for... I believe this because you must first install the package on your system (it must be running on the server) before you can actually access the configuration wizard. Therefore, it might be too late at that point since it is technically already installed by the time you see the disclaimer. I'm not sure though - I don't know if extracting a bunch of files to a folder and accessing it using a web server would be consider installed or not! One thing I do wonder about is why you cannot simply have a file named DISCLAIMER, and have it placed in the root of the extracted archive. I would think that this should be sufficient, even to the courts. It is one of the first things a user sees, and if they choose not to read it, is that not their own fault? Thanks, Bruce. That is a good catch phrase... Too bad a disclaimer could not be as simple as: I am not responsible for your mistakes! :-) Indeed, if I ever went to court, that would be my defense... LOL But seriously... Since the only issue left is that of protection under the disclaimer of the license, I'd like to get this out of the way to clear the way for the (hopefully) approval of my license by the OSI... I believe the following should suffice for the disclaimer (slightly modified from its original version, taking into consideration the thoughtful comments by both Bruce and Mahesh): (so wordy... :-/) One question: Should not the words program as they are being used below be changed to Package since I defined that word as part of my license? NO WARRANTY THIS PRODUCT IS PROVIDED ON AN AS IS BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Each Recipient is solely responsible for reading the source code for this program and determining whether this program does what (s)he expects it to do and for determining the appropriateness of using and distributing the program and assumes all risks associated with its exercise of rights under this Agreement, including but not limited to the risks and costs of program errors, compliance with applicable laws, damage to or loss of data, programs or equipment, and unavailability or interruption of operations. DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY NEITHER RECIPIENT NOR ANY CONTRIBUTORS SHALL HAVE ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION LOST PROFITS), HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROGRAM OR THE EXERCISE OF ANY RIGHTS GRANTED HEREUNDER, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application Server)
The updated license is available at http://enetwizard.sourceforge.net/license.html and below. I believe this can be considered the final revision and as such ready for consideration by the OSI. eNetwizard Content Application Server License (Modified Artistic License) Preamble Copyright Robert Samuel White, 1998-2002. All Rights Reserved. The intent of this document is to state the conditions under which eNetwizard Content Application Server (Package) may be copied, such that the author, Robert Samuel White (Copyright Holder), maintains some semblance of artistic control over the development of the Package, while giving the users of the Package the right to use and distribute the Package in a more-or-less customary fashion, plus the right to make reasonable modifications. Definitions Package refers to the collection of files distributed by the Copyright Holder, and derivatives of that collection of files created through textual modification. Standard Version refers to such a Package if it has not been modified, or has been modified in accordance with the wishes of the Copyright Holder. Copyright Holder is whoever is named in the copyright or copyrights for the Package. You is you, if you're thinking about copying or distributing this Package. Conditions of Redistribution Use - You may redistribute and use this Package, in source and binary forms, with or without modification, provided that the following conditions are met: - Redistributions of source code must retain the original copyright notices and associated comments that are included at the beginning and end of each file that is distributed with the Standard Version. - If the source code was modified in any way, each file that was modified must include the statement this file was modified from its original version along with appropriate comments indicating how and why the file was modified; these comments should be placed directly underneath the first comment section of each file. - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. - The name of the Copyright Holder may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this Package without specific prior written permission from the Copyright Holder. - The names eNetwizard and eNetwizard Content Application Server must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this Package without specific prior written permission from the Copyright Holder. - Products derived from this Package may not be called eNetwizard -- nor may eNetwizard appear in their name -- without prior written permission from the Copyright Holder. You may indicate that your software works in conjunction with eNetwizard by saying Product for eNetwizard instead of calling it eNetwizard Product. - You may not charge any fees for the Package itself. However, you may distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly commercial) programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software distribution provided that you do not advertise this Package as a product of your own. - Use of any form whatsoever must retain the three automatically generated META tags for all HTML output; these tags indicate that the page was generated by eNetwizard and directs users to more information about the product. - Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following acknowledgment: This product includes eNetwizard Content Application Server, freely available from http://enetwizard.sourceforge.net No Warranty THIS PRODUCT IS PROVIDED ON AN AS IS BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. EACH RECIPIENT IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR READING THE SOURCE CODE FOR THIS PACKAGE AND DETERMINING WHETHER THIS PACKAGE DOES WHAT (S)HE EXPECTS IT TO DO, AND FOR DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATENESS OF USING AND DISTRIBUTING THIS PACKAGE, AND ASSUMES ALL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH ITS EXERCISE OF RIGHTS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE RISKS AND COSTS OF PROGRAM ERRORS, COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS, DAMAGE TO OR LOSS OF DATA, PROGRAMS OR EQUIPMENT, AND UNAVAILABILITY OR INTERRUPTION OF OPERATIONS. Disclaimer of Liability NEITHER RECIPIENT NOR ANY CONTRIBUTORS SHALL HAVE ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION LOST PROFITS), HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OR DISTRIBUTION OF THIS PACKAGE OR THE EXERCISE OF ANY RIGHTS GRANTED HEREUNDER, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. -- license-discuss archive is at
RE: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application Server)
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY ROBERT SAMUEL WHITE AS IS' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL ROBERT SAMUEL WHITE OR ANY OF HIS CONTRIBUTORS TO THE STANDARD PACKAGE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY,WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. I think I understand what you are saying; it is because of the part that says ...In no event shall Robert Samuel White or any of his contributors to the Standard Package be liable for... with the operative words being Standard Package. I agree that this should be changed; distributors of modified versions should be able to disclaim their liability as well. The disclaimer is only necessary because there are people out there that will sue you for anything they can and I really don't have time for frivolous lawsuits; who does? So it's important to protect every one who chooses to use this package. What would you propose? Simply removing the to the standard package part of the sentence? Thanks, Samuel -Original Message- From: Mahesh T Pai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 10:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Robert Samuel White Subject: Re: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application Server) Robert Samuel White wrote: - Redistributions of source code must retain the original copyright notices and ... - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. Disclaimer THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY ROBERT SAMUEL WHITE AS IS AND ANY . Slight problem here - the disclaimer is capable of being interpreted as if you do not permit the distributor of the modified version to disclaim his liability. Or is that what you actually wanted? Regards, Mahesh T Pai -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application Server)
Yeah, I followed your logic. Thanks Nathan. This was my second post to the list; the first one explained that I had followed what you were saying and was going to update my license accordingly, but it didn't seem to make it on the list for some reason. -Original Message- From: Nathan Kelley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 2:13 AM To: OSI License Discussion Subject: Re: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application Server) To OSI License Discussion subscribers, From: Robert Samuel White [EMAIL PROTECTED], I have updated the license to avoid the misunderstanding of the condition mentioned by Nathan Kelly. Before: You may not charge any fees for the Package itself. After: You may not charge any fees for the Package itself. However, you may distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly commercial) programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software distribution provided that you do not advertise this Package as a product of your own. This was borrowed from the Artistic License. I did not include the first two sentences from that license, which said: You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of this Package. You may charge any fee you choose for support of this Package. Why? Because this could be only two scenarios in which some one might be able to justify a cost in relationship to the Package. Who am I to say what other possibilities may exist? Quoting those two sentences implies a restriction to only those two scenarios. Leaving them out leaves all possibilities open, as long as they do not charge a fee for the Package itself. If you feel the other two sentences are important, please let me know and I will add them, but personally, I tried to design this license to be as open as possible without adding wording that might add unnecessary restriction. This was, in fact, if you read my original post, one of the reasons I wanted to write my own license to begin with. That's fair, but that single sentence in the original license made it at best unclear whether the software could be distributed with other packages in a commercial way. My interpretation was that it didn't, and thus violated item 1 of the definition. The addition of those other sentences makes it clear that it can be, as long as it is not advertised as being part of the fee being charged for the medium on which the packages are being distributed. This is consistent with the requirements of item 1, and with that change, the license is now, is believe, OSD compliant. Cheers, Nathan. Nathan Kelley | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application Server)
To OSI License Discussion subscribers, From: Robert Samuel White [EMAIL PROTECTED], I have updated the license to avoid the misunderstanding of the condition mentioned by Nathan Kelly. Before: You may not charge any fees for the Package itself. After: You may not charge any fees for the Package itself. However, you may distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly commercial) programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software distribution provided that you do not advertise this Package as a product of your own. This was borrowed from the Artistic License. I did not include the first two sentences from that license, which said: You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of this Package. You may charge any fee you choose for support of this Package. Why? Because this could be only two scenarios in which some one might be able to justify a cost in relationship to the Package. Who am I to say what other possibilities may exist? Quoting those two sentences implies a restriction to only those two scenarios. Leaving them out leaves all possibilities open, as long as they do not charge a fee for the Package itself. If you feel the other two sentences are important, please let me know and I will add them, but personally, I tried to design this license to be as open as possible without adding wording that might add unnecessary restriction. This was, in fact, if you read my original post, one of the reasons I wanted to write my own license to begin with. That's fair, but that single sentence in the original license made it at best unclear whether the software could be distributed with other packages in a commercial way. My interpretation was that it didn't, and thus violated item 1 of the definition. The addition of those other sentences makes it clear that it can be, as long as it is not advertised as being part of the fee being charged for the medium on which the packages are being distributed. This is consistent with the requirements of item 1, and with that change, the license is now, is believe, OSD compliant. Cheers, Nathan. Nathan Kelley | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application Server)
I believe that the same legal effect can be obtained by using the Academic Free License. Have you considered it? The terms derivative work and combined work are defined in 17 USC ยง101. /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From: Robert Samuel White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 11:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application Server) [ Please discuss this license. -russ ] 1. http://enetwizard.sourceforge.net/license.html 2. My license is loosely based upon the Artistic License and the PHP License http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt. The Artistic License is most suitable to my wishes because I wish to maintain some semblance of artistic control over the package while giving the users of the package the right to use and distribute the package in a more-or-less customary fashion, plus the right to make reasonable modifications. The Artistic License does not suffice because (A) I find it to be written in a very complicated fashion (I don't even understand some of the language contained within it); (B) it was largely designed for Perl and C programmers and my package is written entirely in PHP; and (C) it contains too many conditions that I do not feel are necessary. The language I have borrowed from the Artistic License consists of the Preamble and Definitions sections only. The Conditions of Redistribution Use are largely derived from the PHP License, with some modifications. The modifications under this section were designed to simply maintain some semblance of artistic control over the package and to clearly prevent misunderstandings on whether or not any given file within the package has been modified from its original version. 3. I don't understand the first sentence of this section; as far as I can tell, anything distributed alongside my package would be fine; there should be no reason for conflicts assuming that my package was not changed, or it was changed in accordance with the license. When you say derivative works I assume that you mean altering of my package itself; this would fall under my license unequivocally. When you say combined works I assume that you mean works that are created using my package; this would fall under whatever license the user selected for their own work, as long as they comply with the terms of my license for my package itself. I see no reason why any license would conflict with my own; I believe that my license is very cut and dry and easy to comply with. 4. You are welcome to post my license to the license-discuss list with my identification ATT. eNetwizard Content Application Server License (Modified Artistic License) Preamble Copyright Robert Samuel White, 1998-2002. All Rights Reserved. The intent of this document is to state the conditions under which eNetwizard Content Application Server (Package) may be copied, such that the author, Robert Samuel White (Copyright Holder), maintains some semblance of artistic control over the development of the Package, while giving the users of the Package the right to use and distribute the Package in a more-or-less customary fashion, plus the right to make reasonable modifications. Definitions Package refers to the collection of files distributed by the Copyright Holder, and derivatives of that collection of files created through textual modification. Standard Version refers to such a Package if it has not been modified, or has been modified in accordance with the wishes of the Copyright Holder. Copyright Holder is whoever is named in the copyright or copyrights for the Package. You is you, if you're thinking about copying or distributing this Package. Conditions of Redistribution Use You may redistribute and use this Package, in source and binary forms, with or without modification, provided that the following conditions are met: - Redistributions of source code must retain the original copyright notices and associated comments that are included at the beginning and end of each file that is distributed with the Standard Version. - If the source code was modified in any way, each file that was modified must include the statement this file was modified from its original version along with appropriate comments indicating how and why the file was modified; these comments should be placed directly underneath the first comment section of each file. - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. - The name of the Copyright Holder may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this Package without specific prior
Re: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application
Colin Percival scripsit: I may be wrong here, but isn't this covered by trademark, not copyright, law? Only if eNetWizard is in fact a trademark, which may not be the case. Even if one is not in trade, one may wish to avoid confusion between one's own software and someone else's. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.com I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,http://www.ccil.org/~cowan han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application
eNetWizard may not be a registered trademark, but it certainly seems as if it is being used as a common law trademark -- and that's good enough to get protection. /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 11:47 AM To: Colin Percival Cc: Robert Samuel White; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application Colin Percival scripsit: I may be wrong here, but isn't this covered by trademark, not copyright, law? Only if eNetWizard is in fact a trademark, which may not be the case. Even if one is not in trade, one may wish to avoid confusion between one's own software and someone else's. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.com I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,http://www.ccil.org/~cowan han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: eNetWizard may not be a registered trademark, but it certainly seems as if it is being used as a common law trademark -- and that's good enough to get protection. /Larry Rosen My understanding is that something can only be a trademark if it is used in trade: things you give away do not count. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ccil.org/~cowan One time I called in to the central system and started working on a big thick 'sed' and 'awk' heavy duty data bashing script. One of the geologists came by, looked over my shoulder and said 'Oh, that happens to me too. Try hanging up and phoning in again.' --Beverly Erlebacher -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application Server)
To OSI License Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribers, From: Robert Samuel White [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://enetwizard.sourceforge.net/license.html Your reasoning behind using this license is quite good. The license is both fair and equitable, and is compliant with the Open Source Definition except for this one point: - You may not charge any fees for the Package itself. This violates item 1 of the Definition: 1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. If this were fixed, I would welcome this license into the list of Approved Licenses. Cheers, Nathan. Nathan Kelley | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
