Re: IETF Patent Licenses are RAND
Pardon my ignorance, but what is RAND exactly? Henry Pijffers Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: To: The Open Source and Free Software Community Until my eyes grew dim, I reviewed the long collection of patent licenses on http://www.ietf.org/ipr. All I saw were RAND or worse. While some IETF members may have a preference for RF patent licensing, clearly that standards organization isn't getting any RF patent licenses worthy of the name. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: The word prepare is taken from 17 U.S.C. §106, which reserves to the author of a copyrighted work the exclusive right to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work. If the word is good enough for the U.S. Copyright Act, its good enough for me. How good do you think it is for us Europeans and other non-US residents? And on a sidenote, I don't like licenses that designate a specific court of law. I ain't gonna go to the US of A to defend my rights. Henry Pijffers -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: Under the OSL, if you are the Licensor you determine the jurisdiction. It's your software after all. So if you write and license your software in Europe to customers anywhere, you can defend your rights in Europe under European contract law. This suits me fine when I develop a brand new piece of software. If you are the licensee, you can demand your rights in a jurisdiction where the licensor resides or has its primary business. So if you want to sue a big US company for licensing software to you over the Internet while you were in your home in Paris, and big US company has registered to do business in Paris, you can sue big US company in Paris. I don't think this will pose any problems for me in the near future. However, suppose big US company didn't register to do business anywhere in Europe, and just licensed some open source software to me through the Internet, and later decides to change their mind, then how can I defend my rights on anything I did with their software (assuming I didn't do anything illegal)? Almost every license on the OSI approved list specifies a US jurisdiction. The OSL is specifically intended to be country neutral in that respect. If it isn't, we should make it so. What changes do you suggest? As long as the OSL does the same thing for me here in the EU as it does in the US, then I'm ok with it. regards, Henry Pijffers -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Create new license or use MPL?
Hi people, Following the discussion about modified licenses and the desire to keep the number of licenses as little as possible, I have the following question. I'm working on a website project. My work involves Java, HTML, and plain content. I would like a license that covers all 3 types of work, or material. The spirit of the license should be like the MPL, which I think is a very nice license. But the MPL speaks of code in particular as material, not of any kind of material. So I'm not sure whether I could use the MPL for my work. Or can I? Will it cover all of my work, including the plain content? Currently, I have written a new license, which is essentially a copy of the MPL, in which I replaced all such terms as Covered Code by Covered Material. Is this better or does this nothing but increase the nr of licenses out there? If it's the latter, then I'm dumping my license. regards, Henry Pijffers -- Kopflos lauf ich durch die Nacht alleine Unterwegs ich rede mit mir Selbst Und verstehe kein Wort Von dem was ich mir erzähl -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
