On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> Section 117 of the Copyright Act allows the copying of a computer
> program "as an essential step in the utilization of the computer
> program." That doesn't mean that one cannot contract that right away.
> I would not suggest that any open source li
Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
> Then how about a provision of the OSD that reads something like the
> following:
>
> An open source license cannot restrict any fair
> use rights that would be available for a copyrighted
> work in the absence of a license.
>
> That certainly would preve
M. Drew Streib writes:
> Use licenses scare me.
They scare me too. That's why I think we need to change the OSD.
--
-russ nelson http://russnelson.com | New Internet Acronym:
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok |
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice |
Brian Behlendorf writes:
> I see a practical issue - if I install Debian from CD and fire up Mozilla,
> I don't want to have to go through ten dozen different dialog boxes with
I don't like it any more than you do. You're being asked to agree to
give up the right to any warranty. From what va
On Friday 02 August 2002 10:12 am, Mahesh T Pai wrote:
> In such case, the user would have acquired
> the media, (eg:- the CD coming with a magazine) and may or may not be
> aware of the contents. The contents of the same CD can often be
> distributed under different licenses. Here, the issue of
David Johnson (me) wrote:
> I would have no problems with an Open Source license that mandates the use
> of "download-wrap".
One day later and I have come to my senses. Let me rephrase my comment...
I might not have too serious of a problem with an OSS license that mandates
distributors to dis
http://linux.com/article.pl?sid=02/08/02/139208
See discussion.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Section 117 of the Copyright Act allows the copying of a computer
program "as an essential step in the utilization of the computer
program." That doesn't mean that one cannot contract that right away.
I would not suggest that any open source license do so. But an open
source license can -- unles
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> > Someone could refuse to accept your license (thus also
> > refusing to accept your definition of distribution). If he
> > refuses to accept your license, he could then Externally
> > Deploy the code without being bound by the license. This
> >
begin Lawrence E. Rosen quotation:
> Then how about a provision of the OSD that reads something like the
> following:
>
> An open source license cannot restrict any fair
> use rights that would be available for a copyrighted
> work in the absence of a license.
And which country's
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
> Please note that I am not particularly worried about people merely
> *using* the software in an external deployment fashion. The real
> objective is to capture derivative works through a reciprocity
> obligation.
In that case I think you should make use of market f
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> Someone could refuse to accept your license (thus also
> refusing to accept your definition of distribution). If he
> refuses to accept your license, he could then Externally
> Deploy the code without being bound by the license. This
> provision accomplishes little.
Are
M. Drew Streib wrote: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> A better example:
>
> A benchmark suite is licensed under an OSI license, with the
> use provision that you cannot publish results with the open
> source version of the suite. You may copy it, redistribute
> it, use it internally, etc, but on
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> I decided to borrow some of their wording and added an external
> deployment provision to the OSL. Here is the clause I added:
> ... As an express
> condition for the grants of license hereunder, You
> agree that any External Deployment by You
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 10:31:36AM -0700, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> Simply because a license is open source doesn't mean that we like the
> license terms or are willing to license it under those terms. It seems
> to me *unreasonable* to require, through some vague OSD provision that
A better ex
Pretty large amount of s/w is distributed in CDs, especially the open
source variety. ( redistribution under the same license terms is one of
the rights under the OSD ). In such case, the user would have acquired
the media, (eg:- the CD coming with a magazine) and may or may not be
aware of
Several packages of GPL'ed software for Win 32 come click wrapped. eg:-
Bloodshed C++ from and audacity. (any body want more
examples?) If you do not click the accept button, the installation aborts.
Mahesh T Pai.
Russell Nelson wrote:
>The time is coming when you won't be able to distribu
> Yes, it is a "cow-catcher." How would you suggest I reword
> it to make it less onerous yet still get the beneficial
> result of reciprocity? I don't believe, by the way, that
> making the source code available for externally-deployed open
> source applications is much of a burden consider
Concerning "use" licenses:
I understand your reluctance to use software that contains onerous use
restrictions. If a license prohibits you from uttering the word
"pancreas," or any of the other silly restrictions noted in both Brian's
and Drew's emails below, then don't use the license or softwa
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 09:44:23AM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> agreement potentially having some OSI-conformant-but-really-silly clauses,
> like "you may not utter the word 'pancreas' while using our software".
> Even the BSD advertising clause is less of a potential annoyance than this
> cou
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
> 5. External Deployment. The term "External Deployment"
> means the use or distribution of the Original Work or
> Derivative Works in any way such that the Original
> Work or Derivative Works may be accessed or used by
> anyone other than You, used to pro
On 2 Aug 2002, Russell Nelson wrote:
> The question here is whether we should amend the Open Source
> Definition so that it is clear whether click-wrap licenses are
> allowable or not. We could go either way, but we want to hear from
> you first. Your opinions solicited, and engaged!
I see a pr
After reading the RPSL last night, I decided that the provisions it
makes for "External Deployment" are a good thing. RealNetworks is doing
what has been discussed for many months by GPL advocates, namely
bringing under the reciprocity provisions the "use" of an open source
work to provide extern
Russell Nelson wrote:
> The time is coming when you won't be able to distribute software
> unless you have presented the license to the user and their assent is
> necessary to access the software. Even free software. Our industry
> is maturing and we need to be more legally careful and rigoro
Michael St . Hippolyte writes:
> On 2002.08.01 23:18 Russell Nelson wrote:
> > At the July OSI board meeting last week, we approved the Academic Free
> > License (think MIT/BSD/X11/Apache with a patent grant) and we sent
> > four licenses back for reconsideration.
>
> As someone who has sub
On 2002.08.01 23:18 Russell Nelson wrote:
> At the July OSI board meeting last week, we approved the Academic Free
> License (think MIT/BSD/X11/Apache with a patent grant) and we sent
> four licenses back for reconsideration.
As someone who has submitted a license (the Bento Poetic License), is
t
26 matches
Mail list logo
