Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
Any suggestions?
It still doesn't help with the OSL's central defect, which is that it deems
almost every user to be a distributor, unless running the program has zero
effect on anyone but the user (e.g. a self-contained game).
--
John Cowan
It still doesn't help with the OSL's central defect, which is
that it deems almost every user to be a distributor, unless
running the program has zero effect on anyone but the user
(e.g. a self-contained game).
I think that overstates the case somewhat. Is that how broadly you read
undestand, nobody is going to go after your
private, home Elm program.
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan;reutershealth.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 10:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'John Cowan'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Right to Use
Lawrence E
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
Amazon takes an open source data base program and modifies it to provide
data to users on the Internet. Should Amazon have to release its source
code modifications?
The thing is, Section 5 makes them a distributor even if they merely
use the original code without
The thing is, Section 5 makes them a distributor even if they
merely use the original code without modifications. That's
what really bites.
But so what? How does that bite? Merely being a distributor makes no
difference. You only incur the obligation to publish your source code
when you
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
But so what? How does that bite? Merely being a distributor makes no
difference. You only incur the obligation to publish your source code
when you have created a Derivative Work.
*My* source code, yes. But that's not the problem. Reading the following
John Cowan wrote:
I think the simplest way to block this reading is to insert
of a Derivative Work after External Deployment by You in
the last sentence of Section 5.
Consider it done. Thanks. New version at www.rosenlaw.com/osl1.1.html.
/Larry Rosen
--
license-discuss archive is at
7 matches
Mail list logo
