On Tuesday 13 August 2002 10:43 pm, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Whatever else open source licenses do, they do not explicitly make a
licensee the owner of a copy. To transfer ownership requires a
contract; a mere license won't do.
What about the gift of a copy of the software, as in a download
Larry's comment sums up my point quite well when he states:
[snip]
Whatever else open source licenses do, they do not explicitly make a
licensee the owner of a copy.
The implications of the licensee not being an owner of the copy of
software he/she has possession of go directly to Bernstein's
Quoting Russell Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Oh, it's *always* had to be changed. Anybody could insert
restrictions on use into a license and ask us to approve it. Since
the OSD says nothing about a license not being allowed to have
restrictions on use, we would have to approve the license.
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
Whatever else open source licenses do, they do not explicitly make a
licensee the owner of a copy. To transfer ownership requires a
contract; a mere license won't do.
That seems farfetched to me.
If I set out a table with cookies on it by the side of the road
Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
Several people, including Bruce Perens, Russ Nelson, myself, and most
recently David Johnson, have suggested wording for such an OSD
provision. None of those versions has caused the others on this list to
stand up and cheer.
Particularly Bruce's, which he never
John Cowan wrote:
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
Whatever else open source licenses do, they do not explicitly make a
licensee the owner of a copy. To transfer ownership requires a
contract; a mere license won't do.
That seems farfetched to me.
. . .
In neither case is there any
Rod Dixon wrote:
I want to summarize what we have discussed on click-wrap because the issue
is significant from the standpoint of the legal standing of open source
licenses, and so I can include proposed responses in our research project on
the OSD.
It is my understanding that the issue
Carol A. Kunze scripsit:
Traditional open source (GPL, BSD) follows the first. Proprietary follows the
third. There is nothing inherently evil about PURE licenses. If you reserve
title, but give the user all the rights they would have in a sale, plus the
right to copy, etc., where is the
On Wednesday 14 August 2002 01:23 am, Rick Moen wrote:
There will probably always be clever licence provisions to attempt
subversion of the OSD's intent, no matter how many of them get patched.
It would save a lot of time and energy to fall back on the rule of
reason -- and the right of
On Wednesday 14 August 2002 07:20 am, Russell Nelson wrote:
I like David's, because it's such a shot across the bows.
Unfortunately, his suggestion says nothing about modification
restrictions, such as the GPL's, or BitKeeper's.
That is because I wanted to limit the clause to what the user
Quoting Lawrence E. Rosen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Of course, that makes it even more important for the OSD to be precise,
and for the OSI board to be rigorous and not arbitrary in its review of
licenses. That's another reason why I don't like Rick Moen's suggestion
that OSI merely apply the
Rick Moen writes:
Quoting Russell Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Oh, it's *always* had to be changed. Anybody could insert
restrictions on use into a license and ask us to approve it. Since
the OSD says nothing about a license not being allowed to have
restrictions on use, we
12 matches
Mail list logo
