On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Peter Prohaska wrote:
> On 1) This way, it doesn't matter what derived work is anymore because
> we just define it. That should reduce the FAQ size.
But isn't "derived work" a legal term? Open source licenses can put limits
on derived works since if you reject the license you
.
Rod
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Prohaska)
Date: 4/2/04 1:38 am
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subj: Re: OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 08:32:41PM +0100, Robert Osfield wrote:
> It'd be nice to have an official OSL
.
Rod
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Prohaska)
Date: 4/2/04 1:38 am
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subj: Re: OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 08:32:41PM +0100, Robert Osfield wrote:
> It'd be nice to have an official OSL
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 08:32:41PM +0100, Robert Osfield wrote:
> It'd be nice to have an official OSL version specifically which allows for
> programs to link against libraries without license propagation, as LGPL is to
> GPL. This could then be used off the shelf without need for customization
That only means it is not separately protected under copyright.
The owner of the source code copyright retains control over all
copying of the work, including copies that involve mechanical
transformation and later copying of that transformation.
You forgot 17 USC 117. See comments below...
It wou
"Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in part:
> > My take on this definition is that most statically linked programs
> > include a relocation table and symbol tables which are annotations
> > of the source code.
> >
> > These annotations are not particularly original, but if you declare
>
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 02:46:01PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
>
> > You don't need the clarification. Simply linking a program against a library
> > or loading machine readable code compiled from source code doesn't create a
> > derivative work of software.
>
>
My take on this definition is that most statically linked programs
include a relocation table and symbol tables which are annotations
of the source code.
These annotations are not particularly original, but if you declare
that your statically linked program is not an original work of
authorship, th
> Here we have collections which unambiguously are collections: the question
> about statically linked software is precisely whether or not it is a
> collection.
I think someone must successfully argue that it is only a collection
(and does not meet the definition of derivative work:)
from http:
> Read this and try to extrapolate it to software and static
> linking [dynamic linking aside for a moment]:
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/125_F3d_580.htm
If I were defending, and my attorney tried to cite only that
one as defense for a software license/copyright violation, I
w
Alexander Terekhov scripsit:
> Here's the ruling:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3c2n2
Interesting, but I think it's easily distinguishable. This case involves
Softman, who bought collections of software from Adobe and repackaged them
for resale. The court treated this as a sale rather than a licensin
"Forrest J. Cavalier III" wrote:
[...]
> moduleA + moduleB = statically linked executable
>
> executable IS a derivative work of both moduleA and moduleB.
Read this and try to extrapolate it to software and static
linking [dynamic linking aside for a moment]:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyrig
Forrest J. Cavalier III scripsit:
> As far as I understand it, when
>
>moduleA + moduleB = statically linked executable
>
> executable IS a derivative work of both moduleA and moduleB.
That's what's at issue. There aren't any cases in point, so we are forced
back on analogical reasoning.
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
> You don't need the clarification. Simply linking a program against a library
> or loading machine readable code compiled from source code doesn't create a
> derivative work of software.
Well, that may turn out to be the case. But there's enough dispute on
the point
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote, in part:
> You don't need the clarification. Simply linking a program against a library
> or loading machine readable code compiled from source code doesn't create a
> derivative work of software.
Huh!!!?
Clarification or recent citation please?
As far as I unders
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 p
Hi
I'm a similar situation to Peter, currently by OS library is released under a
modified LGPL as per the WxWindows license, but I'd like to adopt a license
which is clearer w.r.t patents, OSL 2.0 would appear to fit this bill except
for the liense propagation. Peter's modification would at f
It looks like the language you suggested is perfect for the template you selected.
Rod
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Prohaska)
Date: 4/1/04 9:55 am
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subj: OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries
Hi,
because I do _not_ want to use the GPL nor the LGP
18 matches
Mail list logo
