RE: License for a document or presentation?

2004-04-08 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
The Open Software License (OSL) and the Academic Free License (AFL) work perfectly well for documentation. I usually use the AFL for my documents and presentations, or the OSL if I don't want anyone to make proprietary derivative works. By the way, slide presentations are software, not that it

RE: OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries

2004-04-01 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Peter Prohaska wrote: I do want to allow linking a library included to software under a different license. As far as i understand it, the only thing I would have to do is to include a notice that goes something like: Clarification of section 1.c of the license: Linking a program

OSL/AFL version 2.1 submitted for approval

2004-03-24 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Please review and approve version 2.1 of the Open Software License and the Academic Free License. OSL 2.1 is here: www.rosenlaw.com/osl2.1.html AFL 2.1 is here: www.rosenlaw.com/afl2.1.html Redline of OSL 2.1 and 2.0 is here: www.rosenlaw.com/osl2.1-redline.pdf The

Discussion of OSL/AFL version 2.1 section 10

2004-03-24 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
In a previous email to license-discuss, I submitted version 2.1 of the Open Software License (OSL) and the Academic Free License (AFL) for OSI approval. This is an explanation of the change. I'm purposely starting this separate thread so that we can separate the OSI approval process (based on

RE: [DotGNU]proposal: DotGNU Trademark License

2004-03-14 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
James Michael DuPont wrote: Sorry for my late reply, I just noticed that today. Please excuse my ignorance, but what exactly do you mean by bare trademark license? Can you give me some hints on what to read up on? Just a few hints. I don't have time to give comprehensive legal answers about

RE: [DotGNU]proposal: DotGNU Trademark License

2004-03-12 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
A bare trademark license is not allowed under trademark law. This license is the easiest way to lose the DotGNU service mark. /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From: James Michael DuPont [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 11:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc:

RE: CPL

2004-02-25 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Compare the AFL with the (almost) identical Open Software License (OSL): http://rosenlaw.com/afl2.0-redline.pdf The omission of the reciprocity requirement from the AFL is intentional. /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From: Tony Linde [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday,

RE: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1

2004-02-17 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
You can do anything you want to with a public domain work except try to assert a valid copyright on it, which is one of the incidents of the BSD or any other open-source license. So, no. So I have no right to create a derivative work of a public domain work and release that

RE: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1

2004-02-17 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
So I have no right to create a derivative work of a public domain work and release that derivative work under a license of my choice? For example, I can not take PD code and incorporate it into Apache httpd? I must misunderstand what public domain means, then. Oh yes, you can do

RE: Initial Developer's Public License

2004-02-13 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
With all those $$ legal funds to protect open source of lately, I just wonder whether the time is right for some vendor-neutral organization to bring the issue of linking into court. It could be a friendly, relatively-inexpensive summary judgment action, oder? Just an idea. Courts

RE: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1

2004-02-12 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Bryan, Thanks for your detailed explanation of the reasons for your new license. I haven't read the license itself yet, but I want to comment on the supposed differences you identified between the NASA license and other already-approved licenses: i. NASA legal counsel requires that

RE: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

2004-02-06 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Scott Peterson wrote: The rights provided under US copyright law are negative rights (the right to exclude others), not positive rights (the right to do something yourself). I don't think so, Scott. At least that's not how the copyright act reads: ...The owner of copyright under this

RE: Public domain mistake?

2004-01-27 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Daniel, I don't think your analysis is correct. Promissory estoppel is a contract doctrine that has nothing to do with a bare license like the GPL. /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From: daniel wallace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 12:27 PM To: [EMAIL

IBM's open patent licensing policy

2004-01-14 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
[Subject changed from Open Source Definition : can it be made explicit about non-copyright issues?] Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] IBM has an open patent licensing policy under which we are prepared to licence our patents on a non-discriminatory world-wide basis. Moreover, IBM licences on a

RE: For approval: Open Test License v1.1

2004-01-08 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
: 3. Publication of results from standardized tests contained within :this software (TESTNAME, TESTNAME) must either strictly :adhere to the execution rules for such tests or be accompanied :by explicit prior written permission of OWNER. You can't place requirements on the ways

RE: Why?

2003-12-29 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Can we assume he means the right to terminate a license under certain conditions? 17 U.S.C. § 203. This is an oft-confused issue. /Larry -Original Message- From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 2:14 PM To: Rick Moen; John Cowan Cc:

Will we be sued?

2003-12-29 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Thread renamed from Why? Jan, Your email highlights the irrational fears that some in the open source community have about being sued. If we exclude those who haven't got enough money to be worth suing over intellectual property infringement, and exclude those who stop doing infringing things

RE: For Approval: CUA Office Public License

2003-12-21 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Hi Danese and Patranun, Given the possible responses to Danese's questions, I suggest that you take part of this discussion off-list. Not that I think Danese's questions aren't appropriate ones to ask -- indeed, they are the *most appropriate* questions any project should ask itself. But

RE: Viral licenses (was: wxWindows library...)

2003-12-12 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
I don't think the word viral describes the process very well. I prefer to use the term reciprocal for licenses (like the GPL and many others) that require licensees to reciprocate for the licensed software by distributing their derivative works under the same license. Reciprocity is a friendly

RE: Court Forces SCO to Show Code Within 30 Days

2003-12-07 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
30 Days Mr. Rosen, you did not mention the source of the article anywhere... --- Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Court Forces SCO To Show Code Within 30 Days SCO claims it still intends to file copyright case 9:19 PM EST Sat., Dec. 06, 2003 IBM won a significant

Court Forces SCO to Show Code Within 30 Days

2003-12-06 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Court Forces SCO To Show Code Within 30 Days SCO claims it still intends to file copyright case 9:19 PM EST Sat., Dec. 06, 2003 IBM won a significant legal victory on Friday after a Utah judge forced The SCO Group to show within 30 days the Linux code that it claims infringes on its Unix

RE: Microsoft Office 2003 XML Schemas

2003-11-26 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
I have some concerns about the Office 2003 XML Reference Schema Patent License. I shared these concerns with my friends at Microsoft and I want to share them with you too. Generally I found the patent license to be a good one, mostly because Microsoft has decided to license these patents

RE: non-aggression pacts for patents and the GPL

2003-11-25 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Hi Will, I'm not sure why you mentioned paragraph 7 of the GPL, but not the fact that many other open source licenses ALREADY have even more effective provisions to prevent patent litigation -- with precisely the result you seek. It may be that Company X doesn't realize this. I suggest you look

RE: OFF-TOPIC - The SCO suit

2003-11-13 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Why would we bother? We'd be in the same court, with the same attorneys, and the same issues to resolve, as SCO/IBM are already. Does the open source community need yet another lawsuit? /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From: Mahesh T. Pai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of

RE: For Approval: HAL, Hermes Attribution License

2003-11-07 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
You ought to consider the Open Software License. [http://opensource.org/licenses/osl-2.0.php] It requires those who create derivative works to publish their source code but, unlike the GPL, it allows licensees to distribute those derivative works for a fee. (The GPL's at no charge language is

RE: OSD#5 needs a patch?

2003-10-09 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Chuck Swiger wrote: In particular, I'd disagree with the field of endeavor clause if it is to be applied to exclude software under a free source but no-commercial-redistribution license from being OSD-compliant. Such licenses are not OSD-compliant. They've been repeatedly rejected.

RE: OSD#5 needs a patch?

2003-10-09 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Chuck Swiger wrote: Someone recently made a comment that the GPL will always be an OSD-approved license regardless of what the actual definitions are; if true, what does this imply if there exists privileged licenses that are not being evaluated on their merits against the OSD

RE: OSD#5 needs a patch?

2003-10-08 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Since the topic has come up, I can tell you that I've been working quietly to revise the OSD for clarity. I have summarized the OSD anti-discrimination provisions as shown below, and written the annotation below it to explain. Your suggestions and comments are encouraged. Do you think this

RE: OSD#5 needs a patch?

2003-10-08 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
David, I'm sorry you think of the GPL as part of a political battle. You've missed the point entirely. It is a method of promoting software freedom. We're all working within the framework of the copyright law. It provides that owners of intellectual property have the exclusive right to do

Facts please

2003-09-30 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Does anyone know the year that the University of California first released software under the BSD? Does anyone know the year in which Richard Stallman first released the GNU system under the GPL? /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Termination for Patent Action

2003-09-27 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
New thread -- was RE: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License John Cowan wrote: The AFL says that if you sue the author of an AFL-licensed piece of software under a software patent claim (related or not), you lose all rights to that software. Arnoud Engelfreit responded:

Selecting an open source license

2003-09-07 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Stan van de Burgt asked: My question: Is there a taxonomy of licenses, or better: a concise set of questions to answer, in order to select the right OSI approved license(s) for a project out of the 70+ present? Start with your open source business model and then select a license to match it.

RE: [CNI-(C)] Re: Public Access to Science Act (Sabo Bill, H.R. 2613)

2003-09-02 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
, Open Source Initiative P.S. In true open source fashion, nothing in the OSL, including its attribution rights clause, interferes with the fair use rights of the public to any work so licensed. Just like the public domain, only more precise. (C) Copyright 2003 Lawrence E. Rosen Licensed under

RE: [CNI-(C)] Re: Open Source Licensing

2003-08-27 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
[Cross-posted to CNI-COPYRIGHT and [EMAIL PROTECTED] Joseph Pietro Riolo wrote: I can see how you meant perpetual to be Still, that does not sit well with me. How can lay people and judges know that you meant that way without seeing your post in CNI-COPYRIGHT? Also, how many people

Validity of the OSL version 2.0 license in Europe

2003-08-14 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
To: European attorneys on this list Several questions have been raised on other lists about the validity of certain OSI-approved open source licenses in Europe. To focus the problem, we really need to know whether any provision of the Open Software License version 2.0 is invalid anywhere in

RE: Can abandonment be irrevocable?

2003-08-14 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Why on earth would you risk abandonment given the uncertainties you highlighted, when you can get as much or more benefit by simply licensing your work under an open source license? Your questions are interesting; perhaps someone will want to write a law review article about the topic. But in

RE: Can abandonment be irrevocable?

2003-08-14 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
1) can Alice can regain ownership of the right? What about 1)? How could Alice go about it?? Regain ownership? What do you mean by that? Have her name inscribed on a rock somewhere? Or regain her authority and dominion over a work that she previously abandoned so that she can prevent

RE: Academic Free License version 2.0

2003-08-01 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
no reason earlier versions should be withdrawn. But I strongly encourage using the latest version. It's up to the licensors, really. /Larry Rosen - Original Message - From: Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general Sent: Wednesday, July 16

RE: license idea (revised)

2003-07-16 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
The Open Software License deals with ASP use as follows: 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 used by anyone other than You,

Academic Free License version 2.0

2003-07-16 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
To License-Discuss (and others interested persons on BCC): Version 2.0 of the Academic Free License (AFL) is hereby submitted for your review and for the approval of the OSI Board of Directors. It can be found at http://rosenlaw.com/afl2.0.html. Most academic-style licenses follow the BSD model

RE: Open source and trademarks

2003-07-06 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Hi Ihab, A trademark is not a privilege to take a word out of the language, to prevent people from uttering that word in their source code or on their entirely different kinds of products, or when comparing their software to the trademark owner's software. A trademark is just a word, name,

Open Software License (OSL) version 2.0

2003-06-28 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
To License-Discuss (and to other potentially interested persons in bcc): I have revised the Open Software License to resolve concerns raised by several people, and today submit the new version to license-discuss for OSI approval. The new OSL license, version 2.0, can be found at

RE: Need consulting

2003-06-06 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
-Original Message- From: Russell Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 8:52 AM To: Roman Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Need consulting Lblsa writes: We develope new commercial software, based on libvpopmail. Source codes is not changed by ours.

RE: Licensing Model: open downstream apps or proprietary license

2003-03-27 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Mitchell Baker wrote: The Open Source Applications Foundation (http://www.osafoundation.org) is planning the 0.1 release of Chandler (a personal information manager) shortly, hopefully by the end of April. OSAF's plan of record for licensing is to follow the model used by MySQL:

Defense against Patents

2003-03-21 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Eben, Your analysis of how the GPL might protect software from a patent threat is not realistic. You hypothesized, solely for discussion purposes, that Microsoft has a patent that reads on some portion of Linux. You suggested that Microsoft would not go after the open source programmer (his

RE: Defense against Patents

2003-03-21 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
practical right now. Best to all, Eben On Friday, 21 March 2003, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: Eben, Your analysis of how the GPL might protect software from a patent threat is not realistic. You hypothesized, solely for discussion purposes, that Microsoft has a patent

IETF Patent Licenses are RAND

2003-03-20 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
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

RE: Please add Public Domain to license list

2003-03-17 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Does abandonment by one joint author constitute a dedication to the public domain, or does it merely convey all remaining interest to the remaining joint author(s) from whom a license may still be required? /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From: Gregory Pomerantz [mailto:[EMAIL

RE: What happens when the copyright expires ?

2003-03-17 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
I'll try to answer: Pardon me for this rather odd question and I hope it won't cause any permanet damage to anyones psychological health. My interest got sparked from the thread reasoning about if public domain can be considered open source. 1) Will a work stop being open source when

RE: What happens when the copyright expires ?

2003-03-17 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 3:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Mikael Andersson'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: What happens when the copyright expires ? -Original Message- From: Lawrence E. Rosen Fear not, they won't stop being open source. /Larry Rosen

RE: What about LGPL? Re: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

2003-03-16 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
: Friday, March 14, 2003 5:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: What about LGPL? Re: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: Richard, Today you finally gave public reasons for your assertion that the AFL is incompatible with the GPL. Because you are simply

RE: Please add Public Domain to license list

2003-03-16 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
There is nothing to prevent you from taking public domain software (or artwork, or music, etc.) and incorporating it into open source software. There is no copyright on public domain works. You don't need a license to do so. You don't need guidance or permission from OSI or anyone else to do so.

RE: Please add Public Domain to license list

2003-03-16 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
I'm not asking the OSI to RECOMMEND releasing software as public domain, or to use public domain software. Just a clarification that public domain source code (if truly public domain) is open source software. But it isn't. It is usable with open source software without the least

RE: Please add Public Domain to license list

2003-03-16 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Here's something I found in a note written by Terry Carroll (http://www.tjc.com/copyright/FAQ/CFAQ02.html). There is a common belief that if someone infringes a copyright, and the copyright owner does not sue or otherwise put a stop to the infringement, the copyright is lost and the work goes

RE: Please add Public Domain to license list

2003-03-14 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
You've answered it beautifully. Give this guy a law degree! :-) /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From: Rick Moen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 10:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Please add Public Domain to license list Quoting David A. Wheeler

RE: Please add Public Domain to license list

2003-03-14 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
The Creative Commons document entitled Public Domain Dedication is not a license. That document is a copyright-only dedication. It is up to copyright holders whether to use it, but it is not something that gets approved by OSI. We only review open source licenses. For computer software that

RE: Please add Public Domain to license list

2003-03-14 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
But the U.S. government can only be sued if the U.S. government allows it, and it can (and does!) produce public domain software. And people are allowed to give things away, even if a lawyer would advise them not to. This is the only really good reason I've heard to state that public

RE: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

2003-03-14 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
or not. /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From: Russell Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 7:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Eben Moglen' Subject: Re: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL Greg Pomerantz writes: Lawrence E. Rosen writes

RE: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

2003-03-12 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Answers interspersed. /Larry -Original Message- From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 'Bjorn Reese'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL Lawrence E

RE: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

2003-03-12 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Brian, First, as to the Mutual Defense provision and its compatibility with the GPL: Person A writes W and licenses it to everyone under the AFL. Person B comes along and, in the true spirit of free software, creates and distributes collective work W+X and derivative work W' under the GPL. No

RE: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

2003-03-12 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
yep. /LR -Original Message- From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:38 AM To: Brian Behlendorf Cc: Lawrence E. Rosen; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL Brian Behlendorf scripsit

RE: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

2003-03-12 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Andy Tai wrote: So the AFL no longer applies to the derived work, is that what you are saying? So I can do whatever I want with my derived work, from a AFL work, licensing my derived work in any terms I want, and people using the derived work will not be bound by conditions of the AFL but

RE: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

2003-03-12 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Mr. Rosen, why don't you put your statement referenced below into the AFL, stating that You are permitted to create derived work and relicense such work under any license terms of your choice, and I waive all my rights in regard to all such derived work, including the requirements of this

RE: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

2003-03-12 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Brian Behlendorf wrote: *Sigh*. OK, now I get it. W+X and W' has *two* licenses, one each to two different parties. The terms of *both* must be followed by Person C. My common-sense, non-lawyer brain says that if person B says W+X or W' are under the GPL, it's really GPL to Person B

RE: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

2003-03-12 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
It's not you, the AFL copyright holder, who can choose not to care. It's Jimmy Q. Gplauthor, whose copyright is infringed by having a derivative work (the GPL+AFL code) distributed under more restrictive terms than the GPL. Huh? Is Jimmy == Person A, Person B or Person C? Keep your

Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

2003-03-11 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Richard, Today you finally gave public reasons for your assertion that the AFL is incompatible with the GPL. Because you are simply wrong on the law and wrong-headed on a matter of principle, I must file this public response. You wrote (at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html) that:

RE: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

2003-03-11 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 11:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: ***Anyone*** is free to take software licensed under the AFL and re-license it under any

RE: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

2003-03-11 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Brian Behlendort wrote: All IMHO, and IANAL, coz I get burned every time I post here these days... Are you afraid I'll slap you 'aside the head? Relax :-) Despite these clauses being within the spirit of the GPL, they are still additional restrictions on redistribution. If the goal

RE: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

2003-03-11 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
***Anyone*** is free to take software licensed under the AFL and re-license it under any license, including licenses not containing the I just want to confirm that I have interpreted the above statement correctly. Anyone can take APL licensed software as a whole and distribute it

RE: discuss: No Warranty License.

2003-02-27 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Right on! /Larry -Original Message- From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 4:42 PM To: Justin Chen-Wells; Nathan Kelley Cc: OSI License Discussion Subject: Re: discuss: No Warranty License. One way around this apparent

FW: DMCA and garage door openers

2003-02-07 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
I'm copying below an email I received yesterday. /Larry Rosen James and Dorothy Brennan [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: I suppose we are beginning to see more unintended ? consequences of the DMCA. In addition to securing patent protection on its garage door opener, Chamberlain created two

RE: from advogato, open source licenses revokable?

2003-01-26 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
What is your opinion of the seeming fuzziness with regards to whether or not many Open Source licenses would be governed under copyright vs. contract law? I think licenses should be written so as to be subject to both copyright law and contract law. Fuzziness in licenses is bad. /Larry

RE: from advogato, open source licenses revokable?

2003-01-25 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Because of the very confusion that is reflected in the discussion you referred to, my two new licenses (the Open Software License and the Academic Free License) make perpetual grants. I believe in being explicit. Note that, for public policy reasons, under the Copyright Act all licenses are

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

2003-01-22 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
I don't believe the sentence You may not charge a fee for this Package itself in Section 5 of the Artistic License would be consistent with the wording I proposed. Does anyone remember why that sentence was put into the Artistic License? Is it consistent with open source software? Is it

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 had been

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

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

2003-01-19 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 'Rod Dixon'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OSD Model Code -- Article 1 (Free Distribution) 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

RE: Model Code for the OSD

2003-01-18 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
I would prefer requiring all available documentation describing how to modify the original work. That means that a developer cannot hide documentation that IS available simply to make others' work more difficult. /Larry -Original Message- From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [mailto:[EMAIL

RE: Derivative Work for Software Defined

2003-01-16 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Can someone clear up the difference between mere aggregation and a collective work? As far as I can tell, a mere aggregation IS a collective work. The former term has no meaning in the copyright law. Is Red Hat Linux a collective work or a mere aggregation of many different software

RE: Derivative Work for Software Defined

2003-01-16 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
OK, so I thought the GPL distinguished between the two - that having a GPL program (I'm not thinking of the kernel here or other things reasonably determined to be part of an operating system, an allowance the GPL makes) on the same CD as non-GPL bits, in a situation such as a Red Hat

RE: Derivative Work for Software Defined

2003-01-15 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Assume that someone statically links object modules compiled from G and object modules compiled from H into a single executable file (call this executable file G+H). I believe that there is wide agreement that the GPL is interpreted such that the author of G has not given permission

RE: Derivative Work for Software Defined

2003-01-15 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Since it is settled that object code is a derivative work of its source code, it seems to me to be maximally perverse to argue that object code is not a derivative work of *part* of its source code. A fortiori, the static-linking case seems to me uncontroversial even in the absence of a

RE: Derivative Work for Software Defined

2003-01-15 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Scott, You keep returning to contract obligations. But, I'm not relying on any contract obligations. Any distribution that includes copyrightable material from B needs the permission of B's copyright owner. The hypothetical that I've presented includes distribution of B. Thus, B's

RE: Derivative Work for Software Defined

2003-01-14 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
- From: Lawrence E. Rosen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 11:13 PM To: 'PETERSON,SCOTT K (HP-USA,ex1)'; 'Andre Hedrick'; 'Ian Lance Taylor' Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Derivative Work for Software Defined Scott, I think your response

RE: Derivative Work for Software Defined

2003-01-06 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
I continue to believe that these confusing messages about derivative works entirely miss the mark. Where in the statutory or case law can one find support for such conclusions as are reflected in these messages? If you don't create a work based upon one or more preexisting works then you have

RE: Derivative Work for Software Defined

2003-01-06 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
So what if most of the Linux kernel is loadable modules? Probably Linux is not a derivative work of those loadable modules, but instead a compilation or collective work. The GPL doesn't require you to publish the source code of either of those types of work. But there are other reasons to

RE: MPL section 2.2, and patent grants on derivative works

2002-11-22 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Because of the kind of patent situation described in Brian's original email and in the response below, I wanted to make the OSL more precise than the MPL. The OSL defines Licensed Claims in terms of the Original Work: ...patent claims owned or controlled by the Licensor that are embodied

RE: Royalty-free Patent Policies for Open Source?

2002-11-21 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
I'm aware most Open Source licenses have patent grants. But in all the cases I've seen, those grants are tied to the specific implementation. My impression is that the W3C requires that the patents be royalty-free for all possible implementations, not just your own. Right? Is

RE: Academic Free License questions

2002-11-21 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
1. Is the AFL generally considered GPL-compatible as the X license is? i.e. if I release a library under the AFL, can GPL applications use it? Or would I need to dual license under GPL also? You would. RMS says the AFL and the GPL are not compatible; he doesn't say exactly

RE: Academic Free License questions

2002-11-21 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
I looked at www.fsf.org and found nothing whatsoever about the AFL. What have I missed? http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses and scroll down a bit if necessary. Thanks for the link. It appears that RMS has spoken (albeit not to us) and I need to respond

RE: discuss: Request for license approval...

2002-11-20 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
You are correct. Each license must be specifically approved. /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From: Bruce Dodson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 1:59 PM To: John Cowan Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: discuss: Request for license approval... Is

RE: time frame between request for approval and acknowledgement of request?

2002-11-20 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
OSI has a confusing queue. Plus the board has been involved in strategic issues regarding the open source definition, licensing law and patents that have interrupted license approval for some licenses. Should we go with the squeeky wheel process: The license that gets the most conversation and

RE: Royalty-free Patent Policies for Open Source?

2002-11-20 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Ernie Prabhakar asked (with reference to the W3C patent policy): Does anyone have good examples of patent grants that meet the terms of this policy? For example, has anyone actually licensed patents in this way for use by the Open Source community? Is there a well-defined way to

RE: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1

2002-11-17 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Almost every country specifies that suits for damages should be brought at the place of residence / business of the defendant. You can rarely contract out of that. That is exactly what I want to contract out of, and I can in many jurisdictions. Licensors shouldn't be burdened by having to

W3C Patent Policy

2002-11-14 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
W3C (www.w3c.org) has just released the Last Call Working Draft of its patent policy (http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-patent-policy-20021114) for Last Call review. Some of you may remember that an earlier draft of that policy provided for the possible payment of reasonable and non-discriminatory

RE: a data licensing problem

2002-11-08 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
What's the problem? Simply specify that open source applications can use the data while any closed source application must get an appropriate. It's open if it's open and closed if it's closed. The Sleepycat license is here http://www.opensource.org/licenses/sleepycat.php The Sleepycat

RE: a data licensing problem

2002-11-08 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
The telephone book is copyrightable, although the individual names and numbers aren't. Say what? I thought the whole point of Feist v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. was that even compilation copyright doesn't apply to phone books, there being insufficient creativity, even for an IP court, in

RE: Approval Request: RPSL 1.0

2002-11-08 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
You realize, of course, that the following definition from your license goes way beyond what a derivative work is under copyright law. That's ok to do in a license, but you may surprise licensees who don't take the time to read your license carefully. 1.6 Derivative Work means either the

RE: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1

2002-11-07 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
What happens if you, in the USA, prepare a derivative work based on two OSL licensed pieces of code, one from, say, Taiwan, and the other from France. You are obligated under two licenses, one from the licensor in Taiwan and the other from the licensor in France. Nothing unusual here with

RE: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1

2002-11-07 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
From: Larry Rosen You are obligated under two licenses, one from the licensor in Taiwan and the other from the licensor in France. Nothing unusual here with respect to the OSL. From: David Woolley [mailto:david;djwhome.demon.co.uk] Two licenses with different effective terms;

  1   2   3   >