Wow! I must add that I do not think I would have seen a comment like this
posted by Bruce Perens 10 years ago. Of course, I completely agree with the
sentiment.
Rod Dixon
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 16, 2011, at 6:24 PM, Bruce Perens br...@perens.com wrote:
OSI should deny certification
Larry Philippe - my take on this issue is that it is not a good idea to
copy an open source license, if the author of the license text explicitly
withholds permission. On the other hand, I have always assumed that the
claim to copyright in an open source license text is both ironic and
the
circumstances and in the manner as the hypothetical.
-Original Message-
From: Mahesh T. Pai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mahesh T. Pai
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 2:36 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: the provide, license verbs
Sorry for the late reply.
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. said
, clarify.
- Rod
-
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
www.cyberspaces.org
This email never should be construed as legal advice.
.. Original Message ...
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 22:56:19 -0700 Lawrence Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Glen Low wrote:
[Humor aside, if the code I'm linking
in
the copyright sense.
As for Eben, his point is framed far out of context.
- Rod
-
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
www.cyberspaces.org
This email never should be construed as legal advice.
The sticky point is this:
It's settled that a binary is a derivative work of
its source. It's
. Hence, my point that some aspect of our discussion is
purely academic.
Rod
-
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.cyberspaces.org
.. Original Message ...
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 22:32:52 -0400 No Spam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not entirely academic what do you
the terms of the license or rejecting them. That's it. On the other hand,
the default rules Rick mentions would apply to a work like a book, which
is not customarily distributed with a license.
Rod
-
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.cyberspaces.org
.. Original Message
the
suit get past a motion to dismiss?
Rod
-
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.cyberspaces.org
.. Original Message ...
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 11:29:14 -0700 Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Stephen C. North ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Do you say the law prevents me
of the dual-licensing model.
- Rod
- Original Message -
From: Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: OSI license discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: Dual licensing
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
I agree with the point that the creative spark
on a delusion.
- Rod
Ok, since you bit the academic discussion, here it goes.
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
If done appropriately, a comparison between 2 software programs that are
similar in most respects - - except one distributed as a proprietary
product (without antitrust violations
in a license. If a trademark is used in the license and I have overlooked
it, then the clause *might* help.
- Rod
Rod Dixon
Blog: http://opensource.cyberspaces.org
- Original Message -
From: Ernest Prabhakar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Wheeler, Bradley C. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL
I am a little puzzled as to the controversy. I attended a law conference
recently where a Microsoft attorney spoke on a panel identified as open
source software. As odd as that was since there were no members of the open
source community on the panel, Microsoft's long list of legal risks warning
Open source software refers to a development model as well as a software
licensing legal regime. I will not bother to use exclamation points or ALL
CAPS to make my point.
- Rod
-
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.cyberspaces.org
.. Original Message ...
On Sun, 06 Jun
I agree with the point that the creative spark is not communitarian. My
point -- if we are to use Eric Raymond's book as an example (see Raymond's
busness model 8 Free the Software, Sell the Brand) -- is that dual
licensing IS an authentic open source model.
- Rod
-
Rod Dixon, J.D
that in that instance the dynamic
linking, itself, created a modified work, section 117(a)(1) would seem to
render the adaptation permissible as a matter of Copyright law.
- Rod
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
opensource.cyberspaces.org
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT: This e-mail communication constitutes
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: Which license to use for MFC based software?
Quoting Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Forgive me, if I am responding to the wrong question. The thread to this
discussion is a little hard to follow.
Indeed, and I'll attempt
This is probably true. But, the legal basis for the GPL's control over
re-distribution or subsequent distribution is that the underlying work is
either a derivative of the original or the original itself. What is
Microsoft's legal basis? Are they claiming that all works created with their
visual
is a prediction that downstream users/licensees would proliferate
similar clauses inappropriately. A carefully drafted license could prevent
that messy result.
- Rod
-
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.cyberspaces.org
.. Original Message ...
On Wed, 19 May 2004 00:39:00
I think Larry will have to answer your question authoritatively. In my
opinion, the distinctions assumed by your question are impertinent. OSI
has the legal authority to control the use of its certification trade mark
within the parameters it sets forth. If they say under condition X, vendor
Y is
are not open source. I
: strongly suggest that you not use that term.
:
: ... on this mailing list which is OSI-specific and uses OSI-specific
: terminology.
:
: Alex.
- Rod
Rod Dixon
Blog: http://opensource.cyberspaces.org
: --
: license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi
The PDF format is now an open standard, and other vendors operate in the PDF
space.
Once it is widely known among enough vendors that government agencies want
to use puffs to create editable forms, I am sure others will enter the
space, if they have not already done so. I doubt that there is a
This is a good point. I also laud the effort by those who spent the past
year or so trying to make it easier to use and adapt licenses.
Unfortunately, occasionally something meant to be easy is more complex
because it bends too many preexisting rules or customs. The easy way to
make a modular
Michael - I agree with you regarding whether this license solves a problem
that an existing license does not. I think the drafter will have to
explain; otherwise, I would not recommend approval of the Adaptive Public
License since it is not attached to a specific project and appears to be
an
It sounds as if you are attempting both to control the distribution of your
license along with your software package and to control the distribution of
the license as adapted for others; this is rather strange to me.
I think there are, generally, three approaches to drafting open source
licenses:
I do not see section 205(e) creating a problem for open source at all.
Rod
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, daniel wallace wrote:
Any code developer who releases FOSS code under an unsigned,
nonexclusive license retains the original copyright
ownership rights. If the code developer subsequently legally
add to the drafter's
intent. This license should be easier to read than it is now. Since I am
not providing legal advice, I cannot be more specific. You would benefit
from having your legal counsel review the terms of this license before
finalizing the draft.
- Rod
Rod Dixon
Open Source
copyright authorship
on the basis of a work in object code has a heavier burden of proof than a
software developer who files for copyright registration using source code.
Rod
Rod Dixon
Open Source Software Law
Blog: http://opensource.cyberspaces.org
: Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
: [...]
: General
I agree with John, but, if there is a connection, it is not readily
apparent. Would you explain your point further?
There may be a conceptually interesting question regarding whether a
particular public license is a restriction on liberty or a grant of
permission to do a thing that otherwise
. citizens. Section 3.J should be revised.
[3] Section 5.F should also be posted on NASA's website since the designated
representative listed on any particular license in the hands of a licensee
is likely to be outdated long before the license terminates.
- Rod
Rod Dixon
Blog: http
I do not have an answer to the specific question, but I suspect the answer
may reside in a treaty or an international agreement that is not a treaty.
The Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), for instance, allows works in the
public domain in the U.S. to be scooped out of the public domain
Larry - For what it is worth, I think your analysis is exactly correct.
-Rod
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Here are two examples that I think would not be allowed
under OSL which are allowed under IDPL.
A commercial database repair tool that uses the on disk
structure
In addition to the point made, you might inquire whether what a machine
does when compiling code is an apt comparison to what an individual does
when translating text. My answer is no since machines cannot be authors
under Copyright law.
Rod
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, John Cowan wrote:
Alexander
Hmm...there is a part of your argument that is appealing in a conceptual
sense, and I think it would be correct to say that Copyright law has
allowed for distinctions between the compiled program and source code. For
example, one could refer to source code as a literal aspect of software
and at
I must be missing something from your argument. It sounds like you are
describing copyright infringement. If so, the impediment can be removed if
the court agrees.
Rod
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal) wrote:
If, when impeded in some way from undertaking one of the actions
Putting aside the issue that a 3 line computer program may lack the
minimal indicia of originality to be copyrightible in the first place,
strictly speaking, what Bob may do with his derivative work (if that one
line code is copyrightible) may depend upon whether Bob wants to
distribute the work
Yes, the issues are exactly as you quite effectively summarize. In my post,
I was not expressing my opinion on the merits of the contract/license
debate; rather, I was noting the primary issues usually involved in that
debate.
Rod
- Original Message -
From: daniel wallace [EMAIL
the
GNU GPL must meet the rules and formalities typically associated with
contracts (e.g., mutual assent).
Rod
Rod Dixon
Open Source Software Law
Blog: http://opensource.cyberspaces.org
- Original Message -
From: dlw [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 15
Hmm... If you could answer yes or no to some of my questions I could
possibly provide a helpful response. I think the way you have written the
provision containing condition 3 is problematic, but it is not apparent - -
not to me, at least - - why it is included in your software license. If you
- Original Message -
From: Alex Rousskov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: For approval: Open Test License v1.1
:
: On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
:
: it is not apparent
and frozen. It may be easier to provide a suggestion
on how to fix your clause.
-Rod
Rod Dixon
Open Source Software Law
Blog: http://opensource.cyberspaces.org
- Original Message -
From: Alex Rousskov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 7:28 PM
seems to
ask whether the public domain should shield dedicators from all or certain
forms of liability? To answer a question with a question: Does the story of
the trojan horse provide a likely answer?
-Rod
Rod Dixon
Open Source Software Law
Blog: http://opensource.cyberspaces.org
I have puzzled over John's comment concerning the right to recapture the
copyright. As a response to Rick's statement, I do not know what John
means???
-Rod
Rod Dixon
Open Source Software Law
Blog: http://opensource.cyberspaces.org
- Original Message -
From: John Cowan [EMAIL
of the license.
Clause 8 is unclear after the first sentence, which is probably all that is
needed. Sublicensing?
I feel obligated to mention that using approved OSI licenses as useful
templates in drafting makes good sense, but as touchstones does not.
Rod
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
Author: Open Source
the
legal aspects of an open source project, but it seems to me to be a harsh
requirement imposed upon those who are already freely contributing something
of value.
Rod
Rod Dixon
Open Source Software Law
Blog: http://opensource.cyberspaces.org
- Original Message -
From: Scott Long
, e.g., the Liu v. PriceWaterHouse case on petition for certiorari to
the
: U.S. Supreme Court. Liu v. Price Waterhouse, 182 F. Supp.2d 666 (N.D.
Ill.
: 2001), 64 USPQ2d 1463 (CA 7 2002).
:
: Rod
:
: Rod Dixon
: Open Source Software Law
: Blog: http://opensource.cyberspaces.org
:
:
: : amado.alves
-read the LGPL and give that license serious re-consideration.
Rod
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
Author: Open Source Software Law
Best points of contact:
Blog: http://opensource.cyberspaces.org
e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice:202-361-0797
fax:202-521-9317
website: http://cyberspaces.org/dixon
holders right to control the creation of derived works as well as the right
to control public distribution of works to accomplish a similar goal.
-Rod
Rod Dixon,
Blog: http://opensource.cyberspaces.org
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
: Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:
: By this you mean that you do not see any particular problem with
: Sean's license being incompatible with the GPL by it's own terms,
: and that you view his license as being OSD-compliant?
:
: Very few people thought that Sean's license was not
putting OSI in
the position of actually having to affirmatively police a potentially
cumbersome and difficult process.
-Rod
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
http://www.cyberspaces.org
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
no reason why OSI would need to post a license on its website,
if the board decided the terms offended the organization's mission and this
type of discretion was not exercised often or arbitrarily, despite the
license' compliance with the OSD.
Rod
Rod Dixon
Cyberspaces.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED
It has come to my attention off-list that I may need to clarify my comment
on the proposed RSPL.
I made 3 observations; namely, that since [1] section 2a of the proposed
license is identical to section 2a of the GNU LGPL; [2] the proposed license
has a similar purpose as the GNU LGPL (according
seems to allow an irreversible switch to the GPL, is not pertinent
to the licensor's need.
Rod
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Mark Rafn wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
: Am I the only one who thinks 2a and 2d are unacceptible? It violates
: OSD#3 by limiting the type
This version seems fine, given what we were told about the license last
time. I read this license to have the same or similar purpose as the LGPL,
and in that respect section 2(a) seems permissible. It is a slight
restriction that could have a strategic purpose, but the author says the
limitation
:
: Am I the only one who thinks 2a and 2d are unacceptible? It violates
: OSD#3 by limiting the type of derived work,
I think you have to evaluate the license in the context of what the author
has told us about his purpose. The GNU LGPL, for example, makes more sense
when you consider its
demand an ownership
interest in copyright (which I doubt many would be willing to grant you).
Rod
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
http://www.cyberspaces.org/webzine/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Christophe Dupre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 9
I, too, favor a more robust public domain for software than most acknowledge
exists today. Unfortunately, this topic is infused with unclear
distinctions, but what is apparent is a difference between what is real and
what is ideal. David's position seems to border on idealistic expectations.
If
[snip]
: Don't let any of our criticisms on this topic lead you to believe that
: none of us want OSI recognition of Public Domain software as Open
: Source Software. That is not the case. There are of course some who do
: feel that way, but many others including myself think it would be a
:
I realize that this question was specifically addressed to Larry and RMS,
but please permit me to press my point once more since I am beginning to
recognize that despite the reputation of lawyers for over-complicating
matters, computer scientists seem to suffer from the same affliction. The
final
The public domain is NOT viewed as synonymous with software licensed
under an open source license.
Rod
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, David A. Wheeler wrote:
Hello - I'd like to ask OSI to add Public Domain to the
open source software license list at:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php
I
with the
GPL, and that may be intended to exert some control over how these licenses
interact in complex transactions.
I think the hypo makes the point (inadvertently or otherwise) that
compatibility with the GPL is not an issue concerning who might get sued for
what.
Rod
Rod Dixon
Visiting Assistant
If RMS responds, would you post his response to the list? I have been
curious about FSF's classification of the AFL as incompatible with the GPL.
thanks,
Rod
- Original Message -
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Dave H [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March
If we think of OSD 5 as intending to prevent the restriction of choices or
prevent the proliferation of licenses that lock out certain groups from
participating in open source projects, doing so might decrease the
likelihood that we will over-read the OSD, and apply it in a manner that
seems
To: Justin Chen-Wells; Rod Dixon J.D. LL.M.
Cc: OSI License Discussion
Subject: Re: discuss: No Warranty License.
To Justin Chen-Wells, Rod Dixon J.D. LL.M.
and OSI License Discussion
subscribers,
From: Justin Chen-Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Nathan Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED
Bill,
My overall impression of this version of your license is that it contains
unnecessary provisions, which you could delete given your stated purpose for
the license, but before addressing that I think paragraph 3 needs a little
work to fully establish that the license is an open source
One way around this apparent conundrum is adopt the suggestion in OSD. Point
out the restriction that may exist, but do not actually incorporate the
tersm of the restriction in your license.
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or
not be in compliance, but this is a forward-looking process.
Rod
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:Forrest J. Cavalier III [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OSD Model Code
to the GPL.
Rod
- Original Message -
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mark Shewmaker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Rod Dixon' [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: OSD Model Code -- Article 1 (Free Distribution)
: Mark
Do you mean clause 5 of version 2.0 of the Artistic License? If so, would
you agree that the proposed change, either your suggestion or Larry's, would
avoid the problem caused by the current Art. 1 of the OSD or do you think
there is still a problem with clause 5?
Rod
- Original Message
the
reference to aggregate software distributions, we remove many fuzzy issues
that could arise with those type of distributions.
Rod
- Original Message -
From: Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Rod Dixon' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 2:26
anything to say about aggregate distributions. I suspect that the number of
instances in which this issue could arise are minimal; hence, leaving out
references to aggregate software makes sense.
Rod
- Original Message -
From: Mark Shewmaker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'Rod Dixon
favor the clarity of Larry's initial suggestion for revising
Art. 1.
Rod
- Original Message -
From: Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Mark Shewmaker' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'Rod Dixon' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 12:30 AM
Subject: RE: OSD
-
From: David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.'
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Rod Dixon' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: Model Code for the OSD
: On Saturday 18 January 2003 09:39 am, Lawrence E. Rosen
by the end of the month unless others post views to the contrary.
Rod
- Original Message -
From: David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Rod Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 9:55 PM
Subject: Re: Model Code for the OSD
: On Friday 17 January 2003
Hmm...I wish I understood what you were really asking. At any rate, be
careful to note whether the author of a license is making a claim that the
license, itself, is copyright-protected; if so, you should get permission
before you copy it.
Rod
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dodson
Hmm...If I understood your proposal correctly, you were suggesting a useful
framework to respond to the often difficult assessment of how to determine
whether a licensee has created a derivative work. My response was that your
proposal/suggestion that the abstraction-filtration-comparison (AFC)
will attempt to set out this distinction, we hope.
rod
Rod Dixon
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Rutgers University Law School - Camden
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cyberspaces.org/dixon/
My papers on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) are available
through the following url: http
Terrific explanation! Thanks.
Rod
Rod Dixon
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Rutgers University Law School - Camden
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cyberspaces.org/dixon/
My papers on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) are available
through the following url: http://papers.ssrn.com
My initial reaction was the same as John's reaction, but the OSD does not
seem to provide clear answers on this. I was inclined to say that the OSD
would require no answers to both questions, but as the poster mentioned, the
text of the OSD is not that specific.
- Rod
Rod Dixon
Visiting
circumstances
involving mailmen, the cableguys, or the repairwomen to properly analyze how
mutual assent applies to open source website licenses. A range of mechanisms
might be appropriate to ensure mutual assent, including instances where a
click is unnecessary.
Rod
Rod Dixon
Visiting Assistant Professor
Despite the expressed sentiment of some OSI members, I doubt that any lawyer
would advise support of this change to the OSD, if it pertains to the
clickwrap issue.
Rod
Rod Dixon
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Rutgers University Law School - Camden
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
ultimately impact the resolution of legal rights in the somewhat-distant
future, but I do not understand the persistent inclination to ignore how
courts have viewed these issues in the past, and likely will do so for some
time in the future.
Rod
Rod Dixon
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Rutgers
- Original Message -
From: Julian Smart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [EMAIL PROTECTED]; John Cowan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 3:17 AM
Subject: Re: discuss: Request for wxWindows License approval
At 21:09 22/10/2002 -0400, Rod Dixon
the expectation is that the OSI mark should be equally respected. [I am off
the soapbox now].
Rod
Rod Dixon
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Rutgers University Law School - Camden
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cyberspaces.org/dixon/
My papers on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) are available
John, would you further clarify your point? I am unsure whether I
understand the distinction you are making. An open source software license
governs open source software. How did you splice this to get to Netscape
7.0? I can post part of Netscape's license, if necessary, but paragraph 5
(I think)
Rod Dixon scripsit:
John, would you further clarify your point? I am unsure whether I
understand the distinction you are making. An open source software
license
governs open source software.
Although the OSI certifies licenses, the OSD is a definition of what
it means for *software
Despite the length of your question, it is fairly vague. You may want to
post the draft of the license with an explanation.
Rod
Rod Dixon
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Rutgers University Law School - Camden
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cyberspaces.org/dixon/
My papers on the Social
that none of the reasons include
termination by the licensor. Is this correct?
- Rod
Rod Dixon
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Rutgers University Law School - Camden
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cyberspaces.org/dixon/
My papers on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) are available
is providing ought to be appreciated. Occasionally, I am
taken aback to see what appears to be reflexive attacks on lawyers on this
list.
Rod
Rod Dixon
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Rutgers University Law School - Camden
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cyberspaces: Words-Not-Deeds:
http://www.cyberspaces.org
Larry's comment sums up my point quite well when he states:
[snip]
Whatever else open source licenses do, they do not explicitly make a
licensee the owner of a copy.
The implications of the licensee not being an owner of the copy of
software he/she has possession of go directly to Bernstein's
I want to summarize what we have discussed on click-wrap because the issue
is significant from the standpoint of the legal standing of open source
licenses, and so I can include proposed responses in our research project on
the OSD.
It is my understanding that the issue initially involved the
I would be careful not to over-read the court's point. In Specht v.
Netscape, the court is trying to highlight factors that distinguish
browser-wrap from click-wrap since other courts have generally viewed
browser-wrap contracts as lacking strong indicia of mutual assent.
If the website appears
source licensing is that the
federal law does not apply to as is licensing. You might conclude that as
is licensing is not exactly consumer-friendly, but one might also view it
as part of the trade-off for the freedom granted by the licensor.
Rod
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
I guess I am unsure of why there is such strong opposition to a clickwrap
licensing requirement. The Netscape-Smart-download case follows the
prevailing legal climate; namely, the licensor increases the risks of losing
a legal challenge to the license (either under the enforcement of a license
Subject: Re: Legal soundness comes to open source distribution
Bruce Perens:
1. Is a simple warranty disclaimer that does not require agreement
adequate?
From: Rod Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I do think the correct answer to the first question is going to
be yes. In response to question #1
My response is yes. In fact, the OSD recommendations I am developing as part
of the OSD Model Code proposal will include a suggestion on which article
and what language might be best to accomplish this. I am hoping to post the
complete proposal during the fall semester.
- Rod
Rod Dixon, J.D
I agree with David that click-wrap (or click-through or web-wrap...)
generally denotes what he describes as download-wrap licenses. Leaving
aside the matter of use-wrap licensing, courts seem to viewing click-wrap
licensing in two forms: the passive license and the active license. What
is at
Thanks Larry, in light of your responses, I think the AFL achieves the
goals you set out to accomplish.
- Rod
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Hi Rod,
Thanks as always for your cogent questions and comments. Well worthy of
a reply
Larry, I like the simplicity of the
Begun, this free software war has!;-)
rod
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Russell Nelson wrote:
John Cowan writes:
The above program is not free software: see
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense .
You are presuming two things:
1) that a lack of acceptance is the
source terms could be most beneficial in the
context of end-users, media, and members of the public...whom might find
open source terms confusing or contradictory. Standard terms could help in
expressing what open source is about in a systematic manner.
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
www.cyberspaces.org
not be deliberately
obfuscated. Poorly expressed source code need not be deliberately
obfuscated to end run the objective of what it means to provide open
access to the source code. Agree?
Rod
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Charlie Root wrote:
Rod Dixon wrote:
Please take a moment or two to download
1 - 100 of 211 matches
Mail list logo
