From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:Forrest J. Cavalier III [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OSD Model Code -- Article 1 (Free Distribution)
Do you mean clause 5 of version 2.0 of the Artistic License? If so, would
you
? /Larry
-Original Message-
From: Forrest J. Cavalier III [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 9:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OSD Model Code -- Article 1 (Free Distribution)
With my rewording, there's also no need
-- Article 1 (Free Distribution)
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
Mark Shewmaker scripsit:
(That is, I've always assumed that you can't claim that you've put
together a mere aggregation of programs while at the same time
claiming that you've been creative enough in your selection to warrant a
compilation copyright on the whole thing.)
As far as I can see,
Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
I think [Article 1] really means:
The license must permit all licensees to make copies of
the software without payment of additional royalties to
the licensor. The license cannot restrict licensees
from either selling or giving away those
to the GPL.
Rod
- Original Message -
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mark Shewmaker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Rod Dixon' [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: OSD Model Code -- Article 1 (Free Distribution)
: Mark
With my rewording, there's also no need for the confusing term
aggregate software distribution. We only need to rely on the
definition of the term copies in the Copyright Act. 17 USC 101.
I like the clarity of Larry's , but I think the clumsy wording of
OSD #1 was to permit the Artistic
From: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OSD Model Code -- Article 1 (Free Distribution)
I think you're doing more than clarifying. I think you're introducing
additional restrictions on a licensor -- and that's good! What
-
From: Forrest J. Cavalier III [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 12:37 AM
Subject: Re: OSD Model Code -- Article 1 (Free Distribution)
:
: With my rewording, there's also no need for the confusing term
: aggregate software
PM
Subject: OSD Model Code -- Article 1 (Free Distribution)
Rod,
In your commentary (§1-1) on Article 1 of the OSD (Free Distribution)
you reference several cases on copyright misuse. That confuses me. The
copyright misuse doctrine has no application for that article of the
OSD.
Article 1 now
' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: OSD Model Code -- Article 1 (Free Distribution)
: On Sun, 2003-01-19 at 14:26, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
:
: Article 1 now reads as follows:
:
: The license shall not restrict any party from selling
: Sunday, January 19, 2003 8:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'Rod Dixon'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OSD Model Code -- Article 1 (Free Distribution)
On Sun, 2003-01-19 at 14:26, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Article 1 now reads as follows:
The license shall not restrict any party from
Rod,
In your commentary (§1-1) on Article 1 of the OSD (Free Distribution)
you reference several cases on copyright misuse. That confuses me. The
copyright misuse doctrine has no application for that article of the
OSD.
Article 1 now reads as follows:
The license shall not restrict any
On Sun, 2003-01-19 at 14:26, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Article 1 now reads as follows:
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
sources. The license
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'Rod Dixon'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OSD Model Code -- Article 1 (Free Distribution)
On Sun, 2003-01-19 at 14:26, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Article 1 now reads as follows:
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or
giving away
15 matches
Mail list logo
