Noel,
I mean all of the above (or, more literally, below). I want the meaning
of *use* to be expansive, limited only by the express provisions of the
OSL license itself. In this license, I encourage creativity and broad
application of the right to use.
/Larry
-Original Message-
From:
John Cowan wrote:
> I think the simplest way to block this reading is to insert
> "of a Derivative Work" after "External Deployment by You" in
> the last sentence of Section 5.
Consider it done. Thanks. New version at www.rosenlaw.com/osl1.1.html.
/Larry Rosen
--
license-discuss archive is
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
> But so what? How does that bite? Merely being a distributor makes no
> difference. You only incur the obligation to publish your source code
> when you have created a Derivative Work.
*My* source code, yes. But that's not the problem. Reading the following
excer
> The thing is, Section 5 makes them a distributor even if they
> merely use the original code without modifications. That's
> what really bites.
But so what? How does that bite? Merely being a distributor makes no
difference. You only incur the obligation to publish your source code
when yo
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
> Amazon takes an open source data base program and modifies it to provide
> data to users on the Internet. Should Amazon have to release its source
> code modifications?
The thing is, Section 5 makes them a distributor even if they merely
use the original code withou
of any.
As a practical matter, you undestand, nobody is going to go after your
private, home Elm program.
/Larry
> -Original Message-
> From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@;reutershealth.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 10:52 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: 'Joh
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
> I think that overstates the case somewhat. Is that how broadly you read
> section 5? Perhaps, then, the wording should be cleaned up.
> Suggestions?
It's the phrase "used to provide services or otherwise deliver content".
Practically everything a business does can
> It still doesn't help with the OSL's central defect, which is
> that it deems almost every user to be a distributor, unless
> running the program has zero effect on anyone but the user
> (e.g. a self-contained game).
I think that overstates the case somewhat. Is that how broadly you read
sec
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
> Any suggestions?
It still doesn't help with the OSL's central defect, which is that it deems
almost every user to be a distributor, unless running the program has zero
effect on anyone but the user (e.g. a self-contained game).
--
John Cowan
9 matches
Mail list logo
