RE: OSD Model Code -- Article 1 (Free Distribution)

2003-01-19 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
I think you're confusing "copies," "collective works" and "derivative works." These are each defined in the Copyright Act, 17 USC §101. There is no such definition for "component of an aggregate software distribution." Claiming a collective work copyright doesn't mean you've created a derivative

Re: OSD Model Code -- Article 1 (Free Distribution)

2003-01-19 Thread Mark Shewmaker
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 l

OSD Model Code -- Article 1 (Free Distribution)

2003-01-19 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
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 p

RE: Model Code for the OSD

2003-01-19 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Bjorn Reese wrote: > I have to agree with David. The documentation quality of the > source code is orthogonal to the availability of source code, > and thus has nothing to do with the OSD. I also agree with you and David as far as that goes, but that's not quite the point I was making. I don't

Re: Model Code for the OSD

2003-01-19 Thread Bjorn Reese
David Johnson wrote: > My opinion is that "deliberately obfuscated source code" should be decoupled > from documentation. The quality and state of documentation is very > subjective, and should not be a part of the OSD. I have to agree with David. The documentation quality of the source code is o

RE: Model Code for the OSD

2003-01-19 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
> > My opinion is that "deliberately obfuscated source code" should be > > decoupled > > from documentation. The quality and state of documentation is very > > subjective, and should not be a part of the OSD. > > IMHO that was meant to exclude people from publishing their > source code after it

Re: Model Code for the OSD

2003-01-19 Thread John Cowan
David Johnson scripsit: > My opinion is that "deliberately obfuscated source code" should be decoupled > from documentation. The quality and state of documentation is very > subjective, and should not be a part of the OSD. IMHO that was meant to exclude people from publishing their source code