On Sunday 03 November 2002 02:42 am, Nathan Kelley wrote:
> "Imagine, if you will, that a large proprietary software firm (or
> consortium) wishes to destroy open source software. If they can require
> that all software come with a warranty, the job is done -- time will
> cook the soup."
No probl
Nathan Kelley wrote:
OK. Let me see if I have this issue correct:
(1) Many open-source licenses are essentially Copyright Notices
Slight difference in my approach. They are more copyright *grants*,
no mere notices.
These mainly deal with
modification, re-distribution, and disclaiming liabil
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
From: Bruce Dodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
From: Lawrence E. Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
If there is no contract, you can't contract away liability. But if
there's no direct relationship between you and the recipient
I like the sound of that world! Meanwhile, as you say, we live with the one
we've got.
Although there are lots of cases that deal with software, how many have
involved software that's free? (Note that my cat, being strictly an indoor
cat, is not as free as my software. But, being an indoor cat,
Bruce Dodson wrote:
> Forget about privity for a second. That's a red herring. My
> cat just strolled in, so now I have other things on my mind:
> Someone gave this cat to me; she was "free to a good home".
> They said she was healthy, and it turned out they were right.
> If I found that s
Bruce Dodson scripsit:
> Thanks John and Larry. Now I am starting to see. That's very frightening
> to think about, but I still find it hard to believe.
Well, software manufacturers have been trying to contract out of this
situation for decades. I don't know that there have been so many court
7;Bruce Dodson'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'David Johnson'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 8:15 PM
Subject: RE: a proposed change to the OSD
> > That used to be the law. But peo
> That used to be the law. But people got tired of buying
> useless and/or dangerously defective products from stores and
> getting this answer:
>
> Store: I had no way to know it was useless/defective: try the
> manufacturer.
> Manufacturer: You and we have no privity of contract: try the sto
Bruce Dodson scripsit:
> If there is no contract, you can't contract away liability. But if there's
> no direct relationship between you and the recipient (such as a contract),
> it's hard to conceive of a way that you could be held liable in the first
> place. At least I, a mere software develo
ll. I am only guessing.
- Original Message -
From: "Mahesh T Pai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "David Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 5:10 AM
Subject: Re: a proposed change to the OSD
>
>
&
David Johnson wrote:
I still haven't come to grips yet with the concept that a contract is required
for disclaimers of warranty. It seems to me that there must be another
mechanism that achieves the same result.
You have to make the terms under which you are offering something
clear. Situ
On Friday 01 November 2002 07:29 am, Mahesh T Pai wrote:
> > I don't need to agree to a license in order to read a book. I don't
> > need to agree to a license in order to listen to music. I should
> > not have to agree to anything in order to use a copy of software
> > which I own.
>
> But then,
David Johnson wrote:
A) A requirement for user consent, in my opinion, is immoral,
unethical, and just plain rude.
Yes. I agree there.
I don't need to agree to a license in order to read a book. I don't
need to agree to a license in order to listen to music. I should
not have to agree to anyt
I'm sorry for the OT post, but the mention of Sybase and OpenWatcom
made me feel it was time for a reaction from me.
Karen Williams from Sybase wrote:
> I've been following this discussion with interest. Since some of it
> is generated at least in part by Sybase's submission of a license for
> O
viewed them, they do
> not agree, in which case they must immediately discontinue any use of the
> software. (Or something along these lines - I'm trying to focus on key
> points that some courts have picked up on, not dictate precise language.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 1. Use Restrictions. It is not Sybase's intent (by use of a clickwrap
> format or otherwise) to restrict the use of the software for any purpose.
Right. That's a different but related issue.
1) if there's no contract, there cannot possibly be any restrictions.
2)
Rosen" To: "'John Cowan'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
, "'Russell
Nelson'" <[EMAIL PR
Robert Samuel White writes:
> as Russ and some his cronies.
I don't have cronies. I have minions.
--
-russ nelson http://russnelson.com |
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | businesses persuade
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | governments coerce
Pots
> Larry thinks he can create a single acknowledgement that will
> satisfy every company lawyer in the U.S., if not the world.
> As Mark Twain said, I will admire to see him try.
I never said I could accomplish such a lofty goal; such people are never
satisfied. But I think my single click-wrap
David Johnson scripsit:
> I do NOT have a problem with click-wrap licenses that are presented to the
> user BEFORE the software is obtained. Okay, I may have problems with some
> actual licenses, but not with the concept.
I have a problem with a multiplicity of such licenses, and the fact that
Russell Nelson scripsit:
> Is your next step going to be to stand up at the O'Reilly Open Source
> Conference and proclaim "It's not a free software license. Don't use
> it!" Sorry, but you're sounding like a certain zealot, the way you
> phrased that paragraph.
No, I've said my bit, unless the
John Cowan writes:
> Russell Nelson scripsit:
>
> > John, go read the proposed GPLv3.
>
> Where? Google is not helpful.
Apparently the text is not available, but Eben and RMS spill the beans
in the following article:
http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:5096
--
-russ nelson
Russell Nelson scripsit:
> John, go read the proposed GPLv3.
Where? Google is not helpful.
--
First known example of political correctness: John Cowan
"After Nurhachi had united all the otherhttp://www.reutershealth.com
Jurchen tribes under the leadership of the http://www.ccil.
On Sunday 27 October 2002 08:54 am, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> Therefore, with commercial software, the licensor must provide a full
> money-back guarantee if the software is returned BEFORE it is actually
> used.
*cough* *cough* Windows Refund Day *cough* *cough*
My major beef would be reduced
David Johnson wrote:
> You completely misunderstand me. Then again, perhaps I
> misunderstood you. I
> had assumed that your use of the term "click-wrap" referred
> to a license
> presented to the user *after* the software was aquired. If you cannot
> understand my disagreement with this kind
John Cowan writes:
> Russell Nelson scripsit:
>
> > How about this legal theory instead
> > of click-wrap: you got the software for free. If you continue to use
> > it, it is because you agree with the terms under which the software is
> > offered. If ever you disagree, you have simply to
John Cowan writes:
> Russell Nelson scripsit:
>
> > At the end of the day, Larry, the community doesn't want to use
> > software for which it has to contract to use.
>
> Amen.
>
> I was reflecting on the Open Software License, and I realized that it is
> not only viral, it is super-vi
Russell Nelson scripsit:
> How about this legal theory instead
> of click-wrap: you got the software for free. If you continue to use
> it, it is because you agree with the terms under which the software is
> offered. If ever you disagree, you have simply to delete the
> software.
You could ver
Russell Nelson scripsit:
> At the end of the day, Larry, the community doesn't want to use
> software for which it has to contract to use.
Amen.
I was reflecting on the Open Software License, and I realized that it is
not only viral, it is super-viral. Essentially everyone who uses the
progra
James E. Harrell, Jr. scripsit:
> I just tried to visit the website to see if BitKeeper's license
> is already OSD approved- but the site isn't there. It's part of my
> argument, so I'll go out on a limb and assume it is OSD approved. If
> not, you can safely ignore part of this email, though it's
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. writes:
>> I understand the desire to develop of a habit and practice that
might
>> 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 t
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. writes:
> I understand the desire to develop of a habit and practice that might
> 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 p
On Saturday 26 October 2002 04:14 pm, James E. Harrell, Jr. wrote:
> Wow- this is quite a militant reaction! I guess maybe I am in the wrong
> place... and it's curious to me why there is so much anger towards the
> commercial entity. To the others in this group- is this representative of
> your Op
>> On the other hand, this provision, either your wording or mine,
might
>> conflict with the following provision in the OSL:
>>
>>5) External Deployment. The term "External Deployment"
>>means the use or distribution of the Original Work or
>>Derivative Works in any way such t
Wow- this is quite a militant reaction! I guess maybe I am in the wrong
place... and it's curious to me why there is so much anger towards the
commercial entity. To the others in this group- is this representative of
your Open Source community at large? Should I crawl back under my rock?
>B) Comm
* Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Calling an open source license a gift is nice semantics, but I am unsure
> what else that description gets us...
>
> Try asking yourself what is the remedy for breach/violation of an open
> source license that the copyright holder/licensor can
PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 1:01 PM
Subject: RE: a proposed change to the OSD
> Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
> > the courts are clear about the importance of such notices for
> > contract formation.
>
> What attributes of a licen
Your are not likely to find a legal meaning (in the copyright law sense) of
"use" restrictions, but it might be helpful to frame the issue in a two-step
analysis: [1] Use restrictions that involve exclusive copyright interests,
and [2] use restrictions that exceed or are outside of the scope of
ex
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. writes:
> 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.
I didn't write it to address the clickwrap issue, although I can see
that it does affect it.
On Saturday 26 October 2002 11:14 am, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > There is some contention regarding whether linking creates a derived
> > work, and exactly one court case on the topic that isn't definitive.
>
> So to allow someone to distribute a statically linked version of
> something lin
From: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> No, it doesn't. The GPL only has a few minor terms covering use. The
> GPL relies on the act of distribution for enforcing its conditions.
And those conditions mostly hinge on the right to create derived works
rather than the right to use.
Bru
On Saturday 26 October 2002 08:36 am, James E. Harrell, Jr. wrote:
> I don't see significant harm in users indicating consent via click-wrap. As
> a
> matter of fact, my lawyers insist on it when I write commercial software.
> Excluding
> such an "action" (which according to our lawyers makes the
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://www.cyberspaces.org
From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> but also would need to give them rights to grant use licenses on the
> derivative?
You directly license all users of your portion of the derivative work.
The creator of the derivative work does the same. The alternative is to
propogate a right t
Dr. David Alan Gilbert writes:
> * Bruce Perens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > My only concern is how this would interact with Larry's new license.
>
> Well I was thinking about GPL on libraries since that restricts what you
> are allowed to link the library against; (No I'm not trying to get
John Cowan writes:
> Russell Nelson scripsit:
>
> > I'm going to propose a change the Open Source Definition at our board
> > meeting next Thursday. It is simply this:
> >
> > 0) A license may not restrict use or modification of a lawfully
> > obtained copy of a work.
>
> What about ve
* Bruce Perens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> IANAL, of course.
No problem - neither am I.
> For software, "use" is execution of the software.
>
> Copyright law doesn't speak much of software at all, so we can't rely
> on that for a definition and must look at court cases for precedents.
>
> Cre
From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Can you explain to me (and the list) what the definition of a
> 'use restriction' is?
IANAL, of course.
For software, "use" is execution of the software.
Copyright law doesn't speak much of software at all, so we can't rely
on that for a defin
Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
> I have proposed a click-wrap notice that would allow ONE single notice
> for all the programs in a distribution. I believe that one notice is
> legally sufficient and indeed necessary to obtain affirmative assent to
> the licenses for the individual works comprising
the law changes.
/Larry
> -Original Message-
> From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@;reutershealth.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 9:51 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: 'Russell Nelson'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: a proposed change to the OSD
>
>
>
Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
> Do you really mean:
>
> A license may not restrict use or modification by the possessor of a
> lawfully obtained copy of a work.
That's what I mean. How can you use or modify something unless you
possess it? Remote control??
But I'm not sure that this particular
Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
> the courts are clear about the importance of such notices for
> contract formation.
What attributes of a license make a contract necessary? I know that
you need a contract to disclaim warranties, but I'm not sure that it's
necessary to disclaim a warranty on a gift.
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
> Russ, if it was your intent to prevent click-wrap notices, then I'm
> While many in the open source community are
> opposed to such notices, I will ALWAYS recommend to my clients that they
> use such notices for their software, and that they require their
> sublicense
> Yes, BitKeeper's public license. But there's also a pending license
> (Sybase) which requires that users indicate their assent to
> the license through click-wrap or equivalent. *Users*.
Russ, if it was your intent to prevent click-wrap notices, then I'm
definitely NOT in favor. While many i
The official site is, indeed, down but my mirror is available should
anyone require use of it:
http://open5ource/opensource.org, other mirrors are available from
there should mine be slow.
Steve Mallett
http://OSDir.com on the O'Reilly Network | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://opensource.org | [EMAIL
Russ & Open Source friends,
I'm fairly new to this group, though immensly interested from a perspective
of how Open Source and for-profit corporations can work together- so please
grant me a *little* bit of leeway. I've tried to stay out of the discussion,
as I am in no way an expert in this field
Giacomo A. Catenazzi writes:
> Russell Nelson wrote:
> > I'm going to propose a change the Open Source Definition at our board
> > meeting next Thursday. It is simply this:
> >
> > 0) A license may not restrict use or modification of a lawfully
> > obtained copy of a work.
> >
> > Anybod
* Bruce Perens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> Copyright law spells out a number of rights, including use and creation
> of derived works. GPL attempts to restrict the creation of derived works
> and contends that linking creates a derived work. This position is not a
> use restriction, but may not
Russell Nelson wrote:
I'm going to propose a change the Open Source Definition at our board
meeting next Thursday. It is simply this:
0) A license may not restrict use or modification of a lawfully
obtained copy of a work.
Anybody have problems with this? Does this have any problems?
I've tw
>
> 0) A license may not restrict use or modification of a lawfully
> obtained copy of a work.
>
> Anybody have problems with this? Does this have any problems?
>
Might be nice, but I think it is a bad idea (details below.)
Doing it in haste is a very bad idea.
In a quick look at the databas
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
From: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
I'm going to propose a change the Open Source Definition at our board
meeting next Thursday. It is simply this:
0) A license may not restrict use or modification of a lawfully
obtained copy of a work.
Anybody
From: "Ralph Mellor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Does OSI certify open documentation licenses?
> If so, I recall there being optional clauses that limit
> the number of printed copies, or something like that.
I don't think anyone is contending that licenses that impose such limits
are Open Source licens
Ralph Mellor writes:
> PS. I haven't been able to thru to http://www.opensource.org
> for an hour or so. Packets seem to be stuck in San Jose...
Yes, Brian Behlendorf's server was not healthy earlier today. I'm
sure that he's working on fixing it.
Oh, and I only CC'ed Bruce Perens because he h
From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well I was thinking about GPL on libraries since that restricts what you
> are allowed to link the library against; (No I'm not trying to get into
> an argument about the merits or not of this).
Copyright law spells out a number of rights, inclu
Do you really mean:
A license may not restrict use or modification by the possessor of a
lawfully obtained copy of a work.
On the other hand, this provision, either your wording or mine, might
conflict with the following provision in the OSL:
5) External Deployment. The term "External Deploym
> > I'm going to propose a change the Open Source Definition at our
board
> > meeting next Thursday. It is simply this:
> >
> > 0) A license may not restrict use or modification of a lawfully
> > obtained copy of a work.
Does OSI certify open documentation licenses?
If so, I recall there being op
* Russell Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I'm going to propose a change the Open Source Definition at our board
> meeting next Thursday. It is simply this:
>
> 0) A license may not restrict use or modification of a lawfully
> obtained copy of a work.
>
> Anybody have problems with this? Doe
Russell Nelson scripsit:
> I'm going to propose a change the Open Source Definition at our board
> meeting next Thursday. It is simply this:
>
> 0) A license may not restrict use or modification of a lawfully
> obtained copy of a work.
What about verbatim copying? Seems to me that shouldn't be
* Bruce Perens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> My only concern is how this would interact with Larry's new license.
Well I was thinking about GPL on libraries since that restricts what you
are allowed to link the library against; (No I'm not trying to get into
an argument about the merits or not of t
On Friday 25 October 2002 02:43 pm, Russell Nelson wrote:
> 0) A license may not restrict use or modification of a lawfully
> obtained copy of a work.
>
> Anybody have problems with this? Does this have any problems?
Several of the licenses have conditions on the -public- modification of the
wo
My only concern is how this would interact with Larry's new license.
Thanks
Bruce
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
71 matches
Mail list logo