The updated license is available at
http://enetwizard.sourceforge.net/license.html and below. I believe
this can be considered the "final revision" and as such ready for
consideration by the OSI.
eNetwizard Content Application Server License
(Modified Artistic License)
Preamble
Copyright
Mahesh,
I do not believe technically that the configuration wizard would suffice
for the legal purposes the click-wrap is designed for... I believe this
because you must first install the package on your system (it must be
running on the server) before you can actually access the configuration
w
In one of my licenses, I use the phrase "the copyright holders and
contributing authors" instead of my own name, in the disclaimers. The BSD
license says "copyright holders and contributors", and the AFL goes one step
further, saying "licensor, contributors, and copyright owners". (I think
"lice
l Message-
From: Mahesh T Pai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 3:00 PM
To: Robert Samuel White
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content
Application Server)
Robert Samuel White wrote:
> I agree that this should
What would you propose? Simply removing the "to the
standard package" part of the sentence?
Thanks,
Samuel
-Original Message-
From: Mahesh T Pai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 10:55 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Robert Samuel White
Subject: Re: d
athan Kelley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 2:13 AM
To: OSI License Discussion
Subject: Re: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content
Application Server)
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
> From: "Robert Samuel White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
> From: "Robert Samuel White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> I have updated the license to avoid the misunderstanding of the
> condition mentioned by Nathan Kelly.
>
> Before: "You may not charge any fees for the Package itself."
>
> After: "You may not charge an
I have updated the license to avoid the misunderstanding of the
condition mentioned by Nathan Kelly.
Before: "You may not charge any fees for the Package itself."
After: "You may not charge any fees for the Package itself. However,
you may distribute this Package in aggregate with other (poss
CTED]
> Cc: 'John Cowan'; 'Colin Percival'; 'Robert Samuel White';
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard
> Content Application
>
>
> Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
> >
> > eNetWizard may n
To OSI License Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> subscribers,
> From: Robert Samuel White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> http://enetwizard.sourceforge.net/license.html
Your reasoning behind using this license is quite good. The license is
both fair and equitable, and is compliant with the Open Source
De
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
>
> eNetWizard may not be a registered trademark, but it certainly seems as
> if it is being used as a common law trademark -- and that's good enough
> to get protection. /Larry Rosen
My understanding is that something can only be a trademark if it is
used in trade:
2002 11:47 AM
> To: Colin Percival
> Cc: Robert Samuel White; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard
> Content Application
>
>
> Colin Percival scripsit:
>
> >I may be wrong here, but isn't this covered by tra
Colin Percival scripsit:
>I may be wrong here, but isn't this covered by trademark, not copyright,
> law?
Only if "eNetWizard" is in fact a trademark, which may not be the case.
Even if one is not "in trade", one may wish to avoid confusion
between one's own software and someone else's.
--
I believe that the same legal effect can be obtained by using the
Academic Free License. Have you considered it?
The terms "derivative work" and "combined work" are defined in 17 USC
ยง101.
/Larry Rosen
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Samuel White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> S
14 matches
Mail list logo
