RE: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application

Open source software is not "given away." It is "licensed." Trademarks for open source software are very typical. /Larry Rosen > -Original Message- > From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 4:56 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: 'John Cowan'; 'Colin

Re: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application Server)

To OSI License Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> subscribers, > From: Robert Samuel White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > http://enetwizard.sourceforge.net/license.html Your reasoning behind using this license is quite good. The license is both fair and equitable, and is compliant with the Open Source De

Re: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application

Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: > > eNetWizard may not be a registered trademark, but it certainly seems as > if it is being used as a common law trademark -- and that's good enough > to get protection. /Larry Rosen My understanding is that something can only be a trademark if it is used in trade:

RE: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application

eNetWizard may not be a registered trademark, but it certainly seems as if it is being used as a common law trademark -- and that's good enough to get protection. /Larry Rosen > -Original Message- > From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 11:47 AM > T

Re: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application

Colin Percival scripsit: >I may be wrong here, but isn't this covered by trademark, not copyright, > law? Only if "eNetWizard" is in fact a trademark, which may not be the case. Even if one is not "in trade", one may wish to avoid confusion between one's own software and someone else's. --

Re: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content ApplicationServer)

At 02:21 30/08/2002 -0400, Robert Samuel White wrote: >- The name of the Copyright Holder may not be used to endorse or promote >products derived from this Package without specific prior written >permission from the Copyright Holder. > >- The names "eNetwizard" and "eNetwizard Content Application

RE: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application Server)

I believe that the same legal effect can be obtained by using the Academic Free License. Have you considered it? The terms "derivative work" and "combined work" are defined in 17 USC §101. /Larry Rosen > -Original Message- > From: Robert Samuel White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > S

discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application Server)

[ Please discuss this license. -russ ] 1. http://enetwizard.sourceforge.net/license.html 2. My license is loosely based upon the Artistic License and the PHP License . The Artistic License is most suitable to my wishes because I wish to maintain some semb

Re: variable notification display req.'s

To OSI License Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> subscribers, > From: Max Privus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Let's say that the copyright display had to appear above any other > windows on the screen for 1/10th of a second per the cumulative number > of copies distributed by the licensee. Under this f