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
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 problem.
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
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
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 store.
: Saturday, November 02, 2002 8:15 PM
Subject: RE: a proposed change to the OSD
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
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 she had
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
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, music
@rosenl[EMAIL PROTECTED], 'Russell
Nelson' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
aw.com cc:
Subject: RE: a proposed change to the OSD
[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)
:
Subject: RE: a proposed
change to the OSD
10/26/2002
10:03 AM
Please respond
to lrosen
I'm getting tired of repeating myself
I have proposed a click-wrap notice that would allow ONE
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
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
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
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-viral.
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 delete
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 of
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
* 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 be
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.
Anybody have
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
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
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 in
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
sublicensees
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 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
.
/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 scripsit:
Russ, if it was your intent
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
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 definition
* 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.
Creation of
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 verbatim
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 into
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 to
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]
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
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.
Bruce
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. I
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 license make a contract necessary? I know that
you need a contract
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 Open
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
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 very
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?
--
-russ nelson
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
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
work.
* 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
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
* 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? Does this
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 optional
change to the OSD
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
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, including
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
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
53 matches
Mail list logo
