Larry Philippe - my take on this issue is that it is not a good idea to
copy an open source license, if the author of the license text explicitly
withholds permission. On the other hand, I have always assumed that the
claim to copyright in an open source license text is both ironic and
the
circumstances and in the manner as the hypothetical.
-Original Message-
From: Mahesh T. Pai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mahesh T. Pai
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 2:36 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: the provide, license verbs
Sorry for the late reply.
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. said
, clarify.
- Rod
-
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
www.cyberspaces.org
This email never should be construed as legal advice.
.. Original Message ...
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 22:56:19 -0700 Lawrence Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Glen Low wrote:
[Humor aside, if the code I'm linking
in
the copyright sense.
As for Eben, his point is framed far out of context.
- Rod
-
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
www.cyberspaces.org
This email never should be construed as legal advice.
The sticky point is this:
It's settled that a binary is a derivative work of
its source. It's
. Hence, my point that some aspect of our discussion is
purely academic.
Rod
-
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.cyberspaces.org
.. Original Message ...
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 22:32:52 -0400 No Spam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not entirely academic what do you
the terms of the license or rejecting them. That's it. On the other hand,
the default rules Rick mentions would apply to a work like a book, which
is not customarily distributed with a license.
Rod
-
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.cyberspaces.org
.. Original Message
the
suit get past a motion to dismiss?
Rod
-
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.cyberspaces.org
.. Original Message ...
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 11:29:14 -0700 Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Stephen C. North ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Do you say the law prevents me
of the dual-licensing model.
- Rod
- Original Message -
From: Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: OSI license discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: Dual licensing
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
I agree with the point that the creative spark
on a delusion.
- Rod
Ok, since you bit the academic discussion, here it goes.
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
If done appropriately, a comparison between 2 software programs that are
similar in most respects - - except one distributed as a proprietary
product (without antitrust violations
I agree that the license complies with the OSD. I also agree that your last
paragraph could be clearer. I suspect that you could even delete it.
The name and trademarks of copyright holder(s) may NOT be used in
advertising or publicity pertaining to the Original or Derivative Works
without
I am a little puzzled as to the controversy. I attended a law conference
recently where a Microsoft attorney spoke on a panel identified as open
source software. As odd as that was since there were no members of the open
source community on the panel, Microsoft's long list of legal risks warning
Open source software refers to a development model as well as a software
licensing legal regime. I will not bother to use exclamation points or ALL
CAPS to make my point.
- Rod
-
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.cyberspaces.org
.. Original Message ...
On Sun, 06 Jun
., LL.M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.cyberspaces.org
.. Original Message ...
On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 15:16:44 -0400 John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit:
Open source software refers to a development model as well as a software
licensing legal regime.
Maybe
that in that instance the dynamic
linking, itself, created a modified work, section 117(a)(1) would seem to
render the adaptation permissible as a matter of Copyright law.
- Rod
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
opensource.cyberspaces.org
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT: This e-mail communication constitutes
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: Which license to use for MFC based software?
Quoting Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Forgive me, if I am responding to the wrong question. The thread to this
discussion is a little hard to follow.
Indeed, and I'll attempt
This is probably true. But, the legal basis for the GPL's control over
re-distribution or subsequent distribution is that the underlying work is
either a derivative of the original or the original itself. What is
Microsoft's legal basis? Are they claiming that all works created with their
visual
is a prediction that downstream users/licensees would proliferate
similar clauses inappropriately. A carefully drafted license could prevent
that messy result.
- Rod
-
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.cyberspaces.org
.. Original Message ...
On Wed, 19 May 2004 00:39:00
: On Thu, 6 May 2004, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
:
: I don't understand why there are so many licenses, if the
: open-source specification is so rigid.
:
: I don't really understand it either. I mean, I know how we got here
: step by step, but looking at the situation now it doesn't make
The PDF format is now an open standard, and other vendors operate in the PDF
space.
Once it is widely known among enough vendors that government agencies want
to use puffs to create editable forms, I am sure others will enter the
space, if they have not already done so. I doubt that there is a
It sounds as if you are attempting both to control the distribution of your
license along with your software package and to control the distribution of
the license as adapted for others; this is rather strange to me.
I think there are, generally, three approaches to drafting open source
licenses:
Software Law
Blog: http://opensource.cyberspaces.org
Le lundi 15 Mars 2004 21:35, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. a écrit :
It might help if you highlighted the changes (using color text or bold
facing). Is your explanation as to why you have declined to adopt the CUA
Office Public License limited
Alexander's point is not exactly correct, but I think the main point was on
target; namely, in addressing questions concerning the copyrightability for
software, the object code is not likely to be treated differently than the
source code. In some cases, the distinction between object code and
I agree with John, but, if there is a connection, it is not readily
apparent. Would you explain your point further?
There may be a conceptually interesting question regarding whether a
particular public license is a restriction on liberty or a grant of
permission to do a thing that otherwise
I think the NASA Open Source Agreement is worthy of OSI's approval - - with
revision, but it also raises issues worthy of discussion and, perhaps,
adjustment to the OSD since the internationalization of intellectual
property law will likely raise similar open source licensing issues for
other
Yes, the issues are exactly as you quite effectively summarize. In my post,
I was not expressing my opinion on the merits of the contract/license
debate; rather, I was noting the primary issues usually involved in that
debate.
Rod
- Original Message -
From: daniel wallace [EMAIL
I do not think the reason why FSF favors the argument you mentioned -- that
an open source license is a license, not a contract -- is a secret. A
copyright license typically sets forth the rights granted by the licensor.
The issue that occasionally arises is whether a copyright license like the
Hmm... If you could answer yes or no to some of my questions I could
possibly provide a helpful response. I think the way you have written the
provision containing condition 3 is problematic, but it is not apparent - -
not to me, at least - - why it is included in your software license. If you
- Original Message -
From: Alex Rousskov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: For approval: Open Test License v1.1
:
: On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
:
: it is not apparent
The issue I see for the Open Test License v1.1 is with regard to the
provision containing the third condition. This may not be strictly an OSD
problem, but, it is not clear to me how condition three is triggered. As
written, it seems to require a POTENTIAL licensee to obtain written
permission
: Why do organizations that release software under a permissive,
: non-copyleft license, use a license in the first place?
This is an interesting question. I am assuming that the poster is really
asking why use a non-copyleft license rather than a dedication to the public
domain, but since
I have puzzled over John's comment concerning the right to recapture the
copyright. As a response to Rick's statement, I do not know what John
means???
-Rod
Rod Dixon
Open Source Software Law
Blog: http://opensource.cyberspaces.org
- Original Message -
From: John Cowan [EMAIL
of the license.
Clause 8 is unclear after the first sentence, which is probably all that is
needed. Sublicensing?
I feel obligated to mention that using approved OSI licenses as useful
templates in drafting makes good sense, but as touchstones does not.
Rod
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
Author: Open Source
If, as stated, the basic codebase is not going to be changed or enhanced by
contributions from anyone other than those created by the original copyright
holder, then dual-licensing is clearly possible by using a less restrictive
license. To be fair, I would announce the fact that the codebase
I just noticed that the Supreme Court denied cert in the case.
: An interesting case to watch is Liu v. PriceWaterHouse, wherein you might
: say the agreement at issue, if validly enforced, is viral as to the
: third-party Chinese programmers in a similar way that the GPL might be.
:
:
: See,
-read the LGPL and give that license serious re-consideration.
Rod
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
Author: Open Source Software Law
Best points of contact:
Blog: http://opensource.cyberspaces.org
e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice:202-361-0797
fax:202-521-9317
website: http://cyberspaces.org/dixon
: On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
: This may be a silly question as I'm probably overlooking something,
: but as far as I can tell the Open Source Definition does not
: forbid any general restrictions on usage of software. The closest
: thing is No Discrimination Against Fields
: Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:
: By this you mean that you do not see any particular problem with
: Sean's license being incompatible with the GPL by it's own terms,
: and that you view his license as being OSD-compliant?
:
: Very few people thought that Sean's license was not
putting OSI in
the position of actually having to affirmatively police a potentially
cumbersome and difficult process.
-Rod
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
http://www.cyberspaces.org
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
: On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 12:18:58AM -0300, Bruce Dodson wrote:
: OSD#5 The license must not discriminate against any person
: or group of persons.
:
: Does that need to be expanded to state explicitly that this
: does not just apply to the license terms? i.e. Should it
: say in addition
It has come to my attention off-list that I may need to clarify my comment
on the proposed RSPL.
I made 3 observations; namely, that since [1] section 2a of the proposed
license is identical to section 2a of the GNU LGPL; [2] the proposed license
has a similar purpose as the GNU LGPL (according
:
: Am I the only one who thinks 2a and 2d are unacceptible? It violates
: OSD#3 by limiting the type of derived work,
I think you have to evaluate the license in the context of what the author
has told us about his purpose. The GNU LGPL, for example, makes more sense
when you consider its
demand an ownership
interest in copyright (which I doubt many would be willing to grant you).
Rod
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
http://www.cyberspaces.org/webzine/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Christophe Dupre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 9
I, too, favor a more robust public domain for software than most acknowledge
exists today. Unfortunately, this topic is infused with unclear
distinctions, but what is apparent is a difference between what is real and
what is ideal. David's position seems to border on idealistic expectations.
If
[snip]
: Don't let any of our criticisms on this topic lead you to believe that
: none of us want OSI recognition of Public Domain software as Open
: Source Software. That is not the case. There are of course some who do
: feel that way, but many others including myself think it would be a
:
My answer (or rather my question) is does Larry have an alter ego known as
Joe Hacker who wants to get back at people on this list making the use of
his license so complicated? ;-)
More seriously, I think the hypo adds to rather than substracts from the
confusion on this topic.
The initial
If RMS responds, would you post his response to the list? I have been
curious about FSF's classification of the AFL as incompatible with the GPL.
thanks,
Rod
- Original Message -
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Dave H [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March
If we think of OSD 5 as intending to prevent the restriction of choices or
prevent the proliferation of licenses that lock out certain groups from
participating in open source projects, doing so might decrease the
likelihood that we will over-read the OSD, and apply it in a manner that
seems
Bill,
My overall impression of this version of your license is that it contains
unnecessary provisions, which you could delete given your stated purpose for
the license, but before addressing that I think paragraph 3 needs a little
work to fully establish that the license is an open source
One way around this apparent conundrum is adopt the suggestion in OSD. Point
out the restriction that may exist, but do not actually incorporate the
tersm of the restriction in your license.
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or
I suppose I read the OSD as setting up a guideline ABOUT the distribution of
aggregate software (Art. 1) while the GPL essentially excludes aggregated
software from its terms; the latter is a negation of scope of applicability
while the former is a shall not restrict.
In addition, mere
Do you mean clause 5 of version 2.0 of the Artistic License? If so, would
you agree that the proposed change, either your suggestion or Larry's, would
avoid the problem caused by the current Art. 1 of the OSD or do you think
there is still a problem with clause 5?
Rod
- Original Message
Good point regarding misuse since the initial confusion arose from the use
of aggregate software in the OSD. Under Art. 1-1, I will delete footnote
3.
As for Larry's revision of Art. 1 of the OSD, that seems fine with me and
consistent with the original annotated version of the OSD. In removing
Mark's point re-introduces the copyright misuse issue since he is correct
that there is a grey area concerning the validity of license restrictions
on copyrightable collective works are concerned. Larry's proposal avoids
this problem as long as it is agreeable that the OSD should not have
I think Larry's point is a plausible interpretation as well, but the point
is well-taken by this discussion that the current version of Art. 1 needs
revision. Unless there is a very good reason to include a guideline on
aggregate software under Art. 1 of the OSD, which covers free
distribution, I
-
From: David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.'
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Rod Dixon' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: Model Code for the OSD
: On Saturday 18 January 2003 09:39 am, Lawrence E. Rosen
David has proposed that Article 2 of the OSD not be read to require
documented source code. To implement this change on our draft, I can delete
from section 2-2 of the model code the explanatory passage that defines
obfuscated to mean, among other things, undocumented code. I'll make this
change
Hmm...I wish I understood what you were really asking. At any rate, be
careful to note whether the author of a license is making a claim that the
license, itself, is copyright-protected; if so, you should get permission
before you copy it.
Rod
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dodson
Hmm...If I understood your proposal correctly, you were suggesting a useful
framework to respond to the often difficult assessment of how to determine
whether a licensee has created a derivative work. My response was that your
proposal/suggestion that the abstraction-filtration-comparison (AFC)
It's an intriguing idea, Dan, but your initial point that a derivative work
triggers the compliance with FOSS seems only partially correct. A public
re-distribution of the original work, for example, would trigger
compliance as well...to the extent that compliance issues arise.
In your second
Terrific explanation! Thanks.
Rod
Rod Dixon
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Rutgers University Law School - Camden
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cyberspaces.org/dixon/
My papers on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) are available
through the following url:
My initial reaction was the same as John's reaction, but the OSD does not
seem to provide clear answers on this. I was inclined to say that the OSD
would require no answers to both questions, but as the poster mentioned, the
text of the OSD is not that specific.
- Rod
Rod Dixon
Visiting
Some of your hypotheticals are interesting, but I think you are missing the
point. We are discussing licenses that are presumably issued by licensors.
In that respect, it is in the interest of the licensor to follow the steps
that might ensure that his or her license is enforceable. One of the
Despite the expressed sentiment of some OSI members, I doubt that any lawyer
would advise support of this change to the OSD, if it pertains to the
clickwrap issue.
Rod
Rod Dixon
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Rutgers University Law School - Camden
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Calling an open source license a gift is nice semantics, but I am unsure
what else that description gets us...
Try asking yourself what is the remedy for breach/violation of an open
source license that the copyright holder/licensor can pursue? In answering
the question, it is not enough to say
- Original Message -
From: Julian Smart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [EMAIL PROTECTED]; John Cowan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 3:17 AM
Subject: Re: discuss: Request for wxWindows License approval
At 21:09 22/10/2002 -0400, Rod Dixon
I cannot resist calling out the irony and twists-of-fate of an OSI trademark
certification of a wxWindows open source software product. If OSI has the
temerity to grant that one, yall should send out a press release.
Seriously, let's be careful with how we view other trademark matters when
the
I agree that article 7 creates compliance difficulties. Will the drafter
explain why it is included? The article might make more sense if it is
limited to modifications contributed to the codebase.
Rod
Rod Dixon
www.cyberpsaces.org
WHY don't you TALK about these?
Pekka
This is not exactly correct. We have discussed this issue before on this
list so a search of the archives might prove helpful. The argument
involving the UCC (Article 2) addresses a question concerning what source of
law should be applied to resolve disputes over contract formation and or
the
;) Nevertheless I would be happy if you
could further help us on our problem so we might find a pragmatic
solution.
Thanks again,
Sandro
On 10 Jan 2002, at 0:08, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
Your question seems to raise several issues. As stated,
however, I had
difficulty in determining
Your question seems to raise several issues. As stated, however, I had
difficulty in determining whether your concern is really about software
or content (i.e. publications made available by software).
When you asked: what if someone uses our software to restrict access to
publications by
Thanks, please post whatever else you come across regarding the OSD.
-Original Message-
From: Forrest J. Cavalier III [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 8:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: OSD fuzziness/omissions?
In analyzing
Rod Dixon wrote:
Hmm...I doubt that the puzzle can be solved by switching
from read to
examine. If you copy the work and the work is copyright-protected,
telling a judge that instead of reading the work, you
examined it
is not going to work. You could try to dodge the bullet
Next semester (commencing Jan. 2002) with the help of Larry Rosen and a
couple of law student research assistants, I will begin a research
project to draft recommendations for improvements to the Open Source
Definition. There has been considerable discussion on this list about
the OSD already,
The question presented is actually a very good one in my opinion because
it calls out a subtle complexity with discussing open source and
understanding what is really meant by the various uses (and, possibly,
misuses) of the term. I think a programmer may freely identify their
software as closed
The `right to derive classes`? I thought someone explained, quite thoughtfully, that
this was NOT a matter of concern under copyright law. In addition, I think it is
unadvisable to make object-oriented programming practices like inheritance,
encapsulation, or polymorphism the subject matter of
The answer is no. You might recall that trademark law does not grant the TM owner the
right to control all use of the mark. If the use is outside the scope of TM usage
(namely, the identification of source), it is unlikely that the use invokes in TM
rights at all...particularly under the facts
The discussion on this topic has been very interesting. I am unsure who posted the
comment about the lawyers at FSF, but if that person could obtain clearance to post
the complete explanation on why FSF has taken the position that the use of inheritance
constitutes the creation of a derivative
I like David's suggestion. It supports both objectives mentioned by Larry
and does so with slight disruption to how the list works now. I suspect a
moderator on license-discuss could be extremely helpful in not only keeping
us on-topic, but in helping to ensure that the list provides as much
I agree with Matt that almost above all the open source community should
value the spirit of openness. Having said that, I think that to the extent
that OSI can foster an environment where the open source community continues
to rise to the next level of extending the benefits of open source
It's my understanding that OSI is trying to come up with a plan to review
the OSD. I may be presenting a proposal to larry soon to help them in that
effort. Even so, I think the lawyers could benefit from the input of the
developers. I would not abandon the project.
Rod
Original
Some have said that the MIT/BSD licenses do not REQUIRE access to the source
code, and where the licenses PERMIT access to the source code, code forking
is permitted for redistributions of modified works. I think this is correct
although the list of conditions clauses in the license are so
Hello Larry, as I recall, you and I have discussed this subject briefly. I
think we agree that this is a confusing area of the law. I do not know of
any caselaw that says a software license is not a contract. But, I think the
issue is slightly more complex than whether a software license is a
Hmm... You were on much better footing before when you appeared to stay
close to traditional copyright. Your statements below about 1201 of the DMCA
are not accurate. I doubt that the word content control appears anywhere
in 1201; that section focuses on access controls and the circumvention of
]
-Original Message-
From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 11:08 AM
To: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
Cc: Rick Moen; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit:
But, do note that the more your
license terms
Who on this list beside myself wondered whether Praveen posted his message
on this list without consideration of why most of us support open source?
Or, did I miss something?
Rod
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001
an end-run on the debate, but
it's just as well due to the debate's complexity and time-consuming quality.
Rod Dixon
-Original Message-
From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 10:50 PM
To: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL
Certainly no insult or attack upon an individual or a project was intended
by my describing a license's objective. I think my point was misunderstood
and I apologize for not being clearer.
Rod
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Since the issue whether a shrink-wrap, click-through, or website, license is
validly formed in any given case is difficult enough to determine, we should
resist the inclination to make this unduly complicated. I hope I can
clarify a couple of points that are often raised on license-discuss.
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My main suggestion, however, was that some of the text - - the legal
stuff - - should be re-written so it is clear that an opinion
of the author
is being expressed rather than a legal opinion being passed on by the
author.
I agree
Message-
From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
This sounds like much ado about nothing. As is well-known,
software is not
an easy fit within copyright doctrine. I am unsure whether there
is a
relevant distinction between use and copy as far as software
Oh, my! I most defintely do not want to discourage you, and the chart is not
a bad idea, but your commentary is written as if you ARE dispensing legal
advice. You use phrases like a court might decide that and it has no
legal effect too frequently. I would suggest rewriting some of the material
On Monday 06 August 2001 08:42 pm, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
This sounds like much ado about nothing. As is well-known, software is
not an easy fit within copyright doctrine. I am unsure whether
there is a
relevant distinction between use and copy as far as software is
concerned
As Larry said, you are asking an incredibly complicated legal question. Two
points: register your work with the Copyright Office immediately
(http://www.loc.gov/copyright/) and hire an attorney. Consulting FSF may be
helpful, but you seem to be presenting a classic case of someone needing
legal
-Original Message-
From: Lawrence E. Rosen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 11:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: copyrightable APIs? (was RE: namespace protection
Finally, one CAN use trademark law -- with all its strengths and
weaknesses -- to
I am sorry about joining the discussion late. This sounds interesting.
Brian, do you mind clarifying your question without rehashing what has been
discussed? I do not want to bore those who have followed the thread, but
what do you mean by "implement" and what is the concern you are raising?
Rod
Admittedly, I do not know anything about DNA or whether genetic code mapping
is like source code, but your point sounds like the kind of argument I
certainly would support.
Rod
This begs the whole question, how can copyleft and
milder forms of copyright licensing be applied to all
IP?
Section 117
Section 117(a) of the Copyright Act, seems applicable. It limits the right
of the copyright holder with regard to computer programs, and is relevant to
the dynamic linking of shared libraries. Given the general purpose of the
GNU GPL, we can make two assumptions about its
How can that create a derivative work?
Well, the question is why wouldn't it?
Because you're not modifying the original work. You're not adding
anything
to it. The two parts (the Program and the Library) aren't ever combined
into one work. If you would argue that they are combined
Imagine I have two novels.
On page 100 of Novel A, there is an instruction: Open up Novel B, turn to
Chapter 7. When finished, come back to this point and continue reading.
As the reader, (the processor in this analogy) I follow these
instructions.
My "thread of execution" takes me from
Dave, I don't have the LGPL right in front of me, if you could quote the
provision you are referring to, it might help us respond. Even so, which
part of the license do you think is disobeyed, and why?
Rod
From: Frank Hecker [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
makes a distinction between licenses
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
