RE: prohibiting use that would result in death or personal injury

2000-07-26 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
I've been following this thread and finally have the time to register my two cents on the topic. In the final analysis, regardless of the language you put into your license, you may not be able successfully to avoid a lawsuit if your software causes personal injury or death, because you cannot

License Approval Process

2000-08-08 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
To the Open Source community: The board of directors of OSI, which has responsibility to approve licenses, is composed of volunteers. They are doing their best to catch up with the backlog of submitted licenses. Given their other activities, this is taking more time than we'd like. I hope you

List of Open Source Licenses

2000-08-09 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
To all OSI license reviewers: I have listed below all "open source" licenses that have been submitted to OSI for approval. If you have submitted a license that does not appear on this list, please let me know. I also list those licenses that have already been approved. You'll note that many

List of Licenses -- as of 8-14-00

2000-08-14 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
To all OSI license reviewers: Thanks to those of you who submitted updated URLs or corrections for your licenses. Listed below are all the licenses approved by OSI and all the licenses I'm aware of that have been submitted to OSI for its approval. Please let me know if there are any changes,

RE: Embedded systems OS/FS

2000-08-22 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Copyright protection subsists in original works of authoriship "fixed in any tangible medium of expression." It makes no difference that the tangible medium is an embedded device in hardware. The licensee of GPL code must honor the license terms regardless of whether he embeds the licensed code

RE: OpenSales -- DRAFT developers agreement

2000-08-31 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
I've read through your DRAFT developers agreement. One of the basic rules of contract law is that there must be "consideration" for every contract. Yet your agreement expressly states that "You do not want to receive any compensation, at any time, for any reason from OpenSales or anyone else

RE: OpenSales -- DRAFT developers agreement

2000-08-31 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
The case law is pretty clear. Under the federal Copyright Act, only the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright at the time of the alleged infringement has standing to sue for infringement. See Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 501(b). Further, an exclusive licensee may only

Board Approvals

2000-09-11 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
At its past two meetings, the OSI board of directors approved the following licenses: * Apache Software License: http://www.apache.org/LICENSE * Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL 1.1): http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html * Jabber Open Source License: http://www.rosenlaw.com/html/Jabber.PDF *

RE: FW: FW: Qt and the GPL

2000-09-11 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
The real question is whether either the dynamic or static linking of a program to a copyrighted work creates a "derivative work," as that term is defined in 17 U.S.C. 101: A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement,

License Reviews

2000-11-29 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
This email is in response to a current thread about the modification of existing licenses. Currently, OSI must approve even minor changes in previously-approved licenses. The Board of Directors is considering new procedures to help everyone avoid such time-consuming reviews. An announcement

OSI Website

2000-11-29 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
(Actually, I don't think the opensource.org web site is very well organized. There is too much text, and no table of contents. There is no obvious way to search it. Also, there isn't much you can do about this, but I often forget and go to www.osi.org first, which I always find amusing.)

RE: Cherry-picking license proposals

2001-01-20 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Perhaps the OSI board should have "cherry-picked" different licenses for review than the ones it did select. Whenever judgment calls are made, there is the opportunity to make them wrongly. I can only assure you that there has been no intention to harm any contributor. I am attaching the list

RE: IPL as a burden

2001-01-23 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
rk is used for. /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 11:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: IPL as a burden on Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 11:15:52AM -0800, Lawrence E. Rosen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: OSI Cert

RE: trademarked logos and GPL

2001-01-25 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
I appreciate and sign on to Rod Dixon's answer. Well phrased! Thanks. /Larry Rosen Rod wrote: Matt, I think the point was to say that some posts were not making a distinction between saying "that license is not legally enforceable in any court in the U.S." and "some of the terms of that

RE: trademarked logos and GPL

2001-01-25 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
John, you asked: For example, it was because of mistakes made early in the game that the open source community lost all opportunity to obtain a trademark on "open source." Hmm, interesting. I thought it was because of the descriptive nature of the proposed mark, which would make

RE: Assigning copyright

2001-02-22 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Once again, I need to suggest that it is not appropriate to ask for (or give) specific legal advice on an OSI public discussion list. No attorney worth the paper on which his license is printed will give a specific answer to a specific question in such a forum. And any answer you get from

Transfer of Copyright

2001-02-22 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
There was an earlier posting asking about how copyrights are transferred. The issue of copyright transfer is a very important one for open source projects, but one that is often ignored. One important consideration is that only the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a

RE: What is Copyleft?

2001-02-24 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Absent that though, here is a hypothetical... Can you copyright your personal name in such a way that people could not legally address mail to you? No. /Larry Rosen

RE: Certification Mark: OSI Certified

2001-04-12 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
ril 12, 2001 7:46 AM To: Lawrence E. Rosen Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Certification Mark: OSI Certified On Thursday April 12 2001 07:05 pm, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: On the page http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html I have requested the following changes: Changing t

RE: namespace protection compatible with the OSD?

2001-04-19 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Brian Behlendorf wrote: There are IP lawyers I know who will argue up and down that software implemented to a specification is a derivative work of that spec, so that spec's copyright terms need to be obeyed (which is why I said both the spec and the code were under my

RE: namespace protection compatible with the OSD?

2001-04-19 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
"OSI Certified" is a certification mark, a kind of trademark. Yet open source software authors can claim their software to be "OSI Certified", not just "equivalent to OSI Certified". This doesn't constitute abandonment of the trademark -- does it? "OSI Certified" is a certification mark, a

RE: copyrightable APIs? (was RE: namespace protection compatiblewit

2001-04-20 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
I have a slightly different question about API's and copyrights. Suppose one has an API that acts as a specification for access to a library and perhaps a sample implementation. I dont care if someone creates another implementation of the API, in fact I want to encourage other people to do

RE: IBM Public License

2001-05-11 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
The Common Public License is the same as the IBM Public License with the name IBM removed. IBM submitted that license directly to OSI for approval because it helped solve a problem that people were having -- specifically, the ability to use the IBM Public License without having to apply for

RE: Copyright License Questions

2001-06-21 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Some authors are comfortable not to have any control whatsoever over how their work is used, distributed and modified. They can do away with their copyright by providing a notice that places the work in the public domain. Such software, which legally speaking is no longer

RE: Copyright License Questions

2001-06-21 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Nobody can do away with their copyright by providing a notice that places the work in the public domain. No, one can't. But I don't see why an author cannot abandon their Title 17 rights explicitly, just as any other property right can be abandoned explicitly. This, surely, is what is

RE: Permissive Public License: proposed new open-source license

2001-06-21 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
So long as it is framed as a license, I like it. By the way, another important reason to license your software rather than simply try to dump it into the public domain (whatever or wherever that is) is that you can disclaim warranties that way! /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From:

Contract or License?

2001-09-13 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
I've been following the discussion about the RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License and the question about whether a license can restrict use as opposed to copying, creating derivative works or distributing those copies and derivative works. Copyright law does not restrict use of an authorized copy.

RE: Open source + commercial

2001-09-14 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
For an example of a license that distinguishes commercial use, see the Aladdin Free Public License: http://www.ghostscript.com/doc/cvs/Public.htm It is not an OSI- or FSF-approved license, but it was written by Peter Deutsch, who is an advocate of the open source and free software movements (he

RE: Contract or License?

2001-09-14 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Copyright law does not restrict use of an authorized copy. It does now. Under 1201, there are various uses of a copy which are prohibited. If a content control mechanism prohibits certain types of use, then circumventing the control (arguably a use) is prohibited,

RE: Is inherited class a derivative work?

2001-10-24 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why? You, as some others, have suggested that in order to declare something as derivative work, it has to contain parts of the original. The above case shows that it doesn't have to be the case, that the original part can assume a concrete or permanent form by a

RE: Can anyone say his or her software is open source?

2001-10-31 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
From: Matthew C. Weigel The Open Source Initiative owns the servicemark OSI Approved Open Source Software, and that is all. Not quite! The certification mark is OSI Certified and the goods are open source software. Thus the usage is: OSI Certified Open Source Software /Larry Rosen

RE: forums

2001-09-28 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Since I've been perhaps the strongest internal advocate within OSI for a forum-based license feedback system, and I'm sensing not much support, let me make my case publicly. The current email-based license-discuss is not helping the OSI board evaluate licenses. Indeed, I just discovered that at

RE: Is inherited class a derivative work?

2001-10-16 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
I've been watching the exchange on this topic with interest. The mere statement from the FSF that inheritance is considered modifying the library, so subclasses of library classes must be released under the LGPL is of little legal significance or value. I, for one, don't think it is at all

Does modification include translation to another HLL?

2001-12-07 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
This email highlights one of my pet peeves about some open source licenses. The word modifications has legal significance under copyright law. It is one example of what is considered a derivative work. A derivative work is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a

RE: paradox Open Source / Open Content

2002-01-10 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Your question raises an important issue of open source compatible business models. Restricting the commercial use of software through a license term is incompatible with section 6 of the OSD: #6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from

RE: NCSA Open Source License

2002-01-17 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Bruce, the so-called advertising clause in the Apache license is extremely important. As I stated in one of my columns in Linux Journal, trademark protection is, in some respects, even more important to open source companies than copyright protection. If that clause is, as you called it,

RE: NCSA Open Source License

2002-01-20 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
The suggestion that the Apache Foundation create a separate trademark license is legally not possible, at least without many more controls over the quality of derivative works than would be acceptable by the open source community. /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From: Mark Wielaard

RE: Advertising Clauses in Licenses

2002-01-20 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
The generally-deprecated advertising clause used by Apache (a phrase used in an earlier email to this list) is, in my opinion, an entirely appropriate license provision. The clause reads: 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following

RE: NCSA Open Source License

2002-01-20 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: NCSA Open Source License Hi, On Sun, 2002-01-20 at 19:50, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: The suggestion that the Apache Foundation create a separate trademark license is legally not possible, at least without many more controls over the quality of derivative

RE: Advertising Clauses in Licenses

2002-01-20 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
A simple solution seems to be simply requiring a URL for the appropriate credit. The list of credits could be automatically compiled using an appropriate convention and be as long as necessary. It would certainly save space. I suppose there is some technical legal reason why this

RE: Advertising Clauses in Licenses

2002-01-20 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
-Original Message- From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Subject: Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: I can't think of a reason why that wouldn't work. Primarily because URLs aren't that stable: they come and go, but free software goes

RE: Advertising Clauses in Licenses

2002-01-21 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Subject: Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: As for the GPL, where does it say that you can't distribute source via a website? As I read it, you must merely distribute source code on a medium customarily

RE: Advertising Clauses in Licenses

2002-01-21 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
-Original Message- From: Richard Stallman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 1:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses I think you have identified three separate

RE: NCSA Open Source License

2002-01-21 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chris Gray Subject: Re: NCSA Open Source License I don't think they need to create a separate ``trademark license''. They just need to make sure that anyone who might consider releasing a product based on Apache is not

RE: Off topic question re Export controls

2002-03-08 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
This thread highlights the risks of asking -- and answering -- specific legal questions on license discuss. This is particularly true in the esoteric field of export control, although my warning applies generally. Attorneys should not give specific legal advice in a general forum in which there

RE: OSD modification regarding what license can require of user

2002-03-13 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Mitchell Baker wrote: As to the question of the scope of a corporate entity, the MPL uses a control standard often found in corporate documents, securities documents and statutes. The language is the sort everyone hates -- clearly written by lawyers for laawyers. I've included it

RE: OSD modification regarding what license can require of user

2002-03-15 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Hi Eben, I appreciate the attempt of the FSF to bring ASP uses under the publish-the-source requirements of the GPL. It is certainly within the rights of a licensor to impose those conditions upon licensees and downstream distributors of modified code. My concern is only with the interaction

RE: Static v. Dynamic Linking -- redux

2002-03-15 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
[This is a new thread from Re: OSD modification regarding what license can require of user. The previous thread was dealing with server applications. I'm not trying to stop the previous thread, which is interesting for other reasons. As time permits I intend to chime in on that too.] Emiliano

RE: Static v. Dynamic Linking -- redux

2002-03-16 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
David Johnson wrote: I would suggest that proprietary licenses that restrict linkage do so by restricting the *use* of the library, and not by being redundant with regards to copyright law. I agree. /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

RE: Discuss: UoI/NCSA Open Source License

2002-03-18 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
John, I really appreciate the clear focus you presented in your rationale for your UoI/NCSA Open Source License. There are good reasons to merge the BSD and MIT licenses into a clearer, but still short, open source license -- and you stated those reasons well. I believe your license is

RE: University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License

2002-03-25 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
John McEntire pointed out to me earlier today that I need to close on the questions I raised about the University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License. As I said in my earlier email, I believe that license is consistent with the OSD and that it warrants approval by the OSI board of directors. I

RE: violation of GPLv2 - remedies?

2002-05-06 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
The issues of enforceability of the GPL and the remedies available for breach of the GPL are complicated ones. Because the GPL is intended by its authors to be a copyright license rather than a contract, copyright remedies apply. It makes a difference, under the Copyright Act, whether the

RE: Executions for piracy

2002-06-06 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
When we find (piracy rings), we confiscate the products and the equipment they use to make them and turn to execute the persons or organizations involved, said the Waigaoqiao Free Trade Zone's Jian. Would a license provision that resulted in the execution of a copyright infringer be

RE: Academic Free License

2002-06-26 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Dave Woolley wrote: The requirement to include the whole disclaimer, and the fact that the dsclaimer seems to relate to the sub-licensor, rather than the original licensor, seems to prevent a business model in which the sub-licensor sells warranty services. That would seem to rule out

Open Software License version 1.0

2002-07-28 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
ownership of such = entity. This license is Copyright (C) = 2002 Lawrence E. Rosen.  All rights reserved.  Permission is hereby = granted to copy and distribute this license without modification.  This license may = not be modified without the express written permission of its copyright = owner.

RE: discuss: SHPTRANS License Template

2002-08-01 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Here are my comments on the SHPTRANS License Template (as modified): * You grant permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute the accompanying software. Do you also intend to grant permission to distribute the modifications? Is the grant perpetual? Sub-licenseable? Royalty-free? * In

Open Software License

2002-08-01 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
At Bruce Dodson's suggestion, I have revised section 3 of the Open Software License (Grant of Source Code License) so that the term Source Code is general enough to apply to other works besides traditional software. I also removed the confusing term interface documentation and refer instead to

OSL Version 1.0 dated 8/2/2002

2002-08-02 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
After reading the RPSL last night, I decided that the provisions it makes for External Deployment are a good thing. RealNetworks is doing what has been discussed for many months by GPL advocates, namely bringing under the reciprocity provisions the use of an open source work to provide external

RE: Legal soundness comes to open source distribution

2002-08-02 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Concerning use licenses: I understand your reluctance to use software that contains onerous use restrictions. If a license prohibits you from uttering the word pancreas, or any of the other silly restrictions noted in both Brian's and Drew's emails below, then don't use the license or software

FW: OSL Version 1.0 dated 8/2/2002

2002-08-02 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Version 1.0 dated 8/2/2002 Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: 5. External Deployment. The term External Deployment means the use or distribution of the Original Work or Derivative Works in any way such that the Original Work or Derivative Works may be accessed or used

RE: Legal soundness comes to open source distribution

2002-08-02 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
M. Drew Streib wrote: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] A better example: A benchmark suite is licensed under an OSI license, with the use provision that you cannot publish results with the open source version of the suite. You may copy it, redistribute it, use it internally, etc, but one of

RE: OSL Version 1.0 dated 8/2/2002

2002-08-02 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Ken Arromdee wrote: Someone could refuse to accept your license (thus also refusing to accept your definition of distribution). If he refuses to accept your license, he could then Externally Deploy the code without being bound by the license. This provision accomplishes little. Are you

RE: OSL Version 1.0 dated 8/2/2002

2002-08-02 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
1.0 dated 8/2/2002 On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: Someone could refuse to accept your license (thus also refusing to accept your definition of distribution). If he refuses to accept your license, he could then Externally Deploy the code without being bound

RE: Legal soundness comes to open source distribution

2002-08-03 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Russell Nelson wrote: From what various legal scholars tell me, a non-contractual license (such as the GPL) cannot cause you to give up your warranty rights. On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, Brian Behlendorf wrote: Is there a reference of some sort for this? It's about the

RE: Legal soundness comes to open source distribution

2002-08-03 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
complex issues together in one email, they obviously get confused. /Larry -Original Message- From: Bruce Perens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 10:58 AM To: Lawrence E. Rosen Cc: 'Brian Behlendorf'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Legal soundness comes

A practical example of a click-wrap license

2002-08-04 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Please consider the following scenario: I create a program that I want to release to the world under an open source license (KillerApp, or KA). I want to provide all the rights to the KA code that the OSD mandates, including the rights to use, copy, make modifications, and distribute. I also

RE: A practical example of a click-wrap license

2002-08-04 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
This scenario argues for permitting click-to-use but not click-to-redistribute. Yes, but also requiring my redistributors to implement click-to-use. /Larry -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

RE: Open Source Click-Wrap Notice

2002-08-10 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
- From: Mahesh T Pai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 6:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Open Source Click-Wrap Notice Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: Mahesh T. Pai wrote: Here, we are presented with a case where one click is intended to indicate assent

RE: Open Source Click-Wrap Notice

2002-08-10 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: To: License-discuss After private follow-up discussion among interested parties, I am proposing the following Open Source Click-Wrap Notice that can be used for the distribution of open source software. I seek the review of the participants on license-discuss

RE: Open Source Click-Wrap Notice

2002-08-10 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
'Forrest J. Cavalier III' wrote: How do you form a contract without presenting the terms? Is there a way to review the terms without clicking? Is such vague language sufficient to incorporate all the terms (of those possibly 800 licenses) by reference? Seems against common sense to me.

RE: Open Source Click-Wrap Notice

2002-08-11 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Er, I agree. :-). But, as an open source author, does the limitation of liability protect me? The contract that the end user clicked is between the distributor and the end user; does it protect the original developer, who is a third-party? (Or is the distributor is seen as an

RE: click once, accept all licenses.

2002-08-11 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Carol A. Kunze wrote: I don't think this can work. A third party - in this case the distributor - cannot cause a contract to be entered into between two parties, one of whom is not present. This points out one of the confusing aspects of different open source licenses. Some licenses

RE: Legal soundness comes to open source distribution

2002-08-13 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
But the use of the software is not an exclusive right of the author. That's why click-wrap is problematic. I understood the point that Rod Dixon was making is that section 117(a) of the Copyright Act applies, by its own words, to owners of a copy as distinguished from licensees. If that

RE: Legal soundness comes to open source distribution

2002-08-13 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
I think you *almost* have it right, Rod. There are two different issues at stake here. First, Bruce Perens and others have been concerned for some time that the OSD does not address the right to use software; it is silent on that point. OSI has been asked in the past to approve licenses that

Academic Free License

2002-08-21 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
I have modified the Academic Free License to remove the word sublicense from the copyright grant. The new version, numbered as version 1.1, is now posted to www.rosenlaw.com/afl.html. It is best for open source licenses not to be sublicenseable I request the OSI board to approve that revised

RE: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application Server)

2002-08-30 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
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 §101. /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From: Robert Samuel White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent:

RE: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application

2002-08-30 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
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 -Original Message- From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 11:47 AM To:

RE: Addendums to the LGPL

2002-09-11 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
I am very angry at companies that try to protect their technology in invalid ways. There is no way that a company can restrict the reader of a copyrighted publicly-available document from using the information gleaned from reading that document for any purpose whatsoever. Documents can of

RE: Moral Rights (was Simplified Artistic License (A Proposed Compromise))

2002-10-03 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Robert Samuel White and Russ Nelson: I'm sorry I haven't stepped into this conversation sooner. I've been lurking and handling other matters I am unhappy with the current status of this request. Robert Samuel White (RSW) is absolutely within his rights to obtain approval for his license

RE: Moral Rights (was Simplified Artistic License (A Proposed Compromise))

2002-10-06 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
I don't know if this is quite what Larry was saying, but I for one consider it an unfair tactic to try to discourage RSW from seeking approval. Russ and other board members may think he is misguided in believing that others will want to use his license, and might even be right, but that

RE: Procedure for using an approved license

2002-10-06 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
James, I agree with the problems you've noted with MPL 1.1. For most practical purposes, the Open Software License (OSL) accomplishes most of what MPL 1.1 does -- without those problems you mentioned. The major difference is that MPL 1.1 applies on a file-by-file basis and the OSL deals

RE: Simplified Artistic License [osd]

2002-10-08 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
- First and foremost, I want a license which is less complicated than the existing licenses. You're entitled to that, but we've warned you to consult an attorney. Complexity is related to enforceability. Attorneys will almost certainly not recommend your license to their clients because it

Revised versions of the OSL and AFL

2002-10-23 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
New versions of the Open Software License (OSL) and the Academic Free License (AFL) are now available for your review. They are posted at: www.rosenlaw.com/osl1.1.html www.rosenlaw.com/afl1.2.html Both licenses now contain an Attribution Rights provision. Other minor changes have been

RE: Revised versions of the OSL and AFL

2002-10-23 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
of it! Bruce - Original Message - From: Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 12:44 PM Subject: Revised versions of the OSL and AFL New versions of the Open Software License (OSL) and the Academic Free License (AFL) are now

Warranty

2002-10-20 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Mitchell Baker wrote: Larry, can you explain the thinking behind the warranty in the OSL? Sure. Take a look at http://linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6155. /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

RE: Procedure for using an approved license

2002-10-20 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
From: Rod Dixon [mailto:rod;cyberspaces.org] there is a lot being said here. To clarify one point at a time, the use of derivative work should be in the copyright law sense, not an unusual meaning gleamed from a license...whether it is the MPL or any other license. In this respect, the

RE: OSI certification mark and BSD licence

2002-10-22 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
The question is not well-formed, because it is not software but licenses that are certified. Acuatlly, John, it is exactly the opposite. Licenses are approved, software is certified if it is distributed under an approved license. Trademark law does not allow a trademark on a license,

RE: Copyright

2002-10-24 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Roblimo wrote: Do you own all the software on your computer? I own all the software on mine. :) You own a copy of the software under a license from the copyright and patent holders. You may be restricted from doing certain things with your property by law or by contract. This is as true of

RE: Copyright

2002-10-24 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Giacomo Catenazzi wrote: The copyright notice (thus author names) are normally covered by copyright law. IANAL, but I think you cannot modify the credits (or better, you cannot remove credits), indipendent of licenses! Removing credits is governed by the license. Most licenses are silent

RE: Copyright

2002-10-24 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Here's the new Attribution Rights clause of the AFL/OSL: Attribution Rights. You must retain, in the Source Code of any Derivative Works that You create, all copyright, patent or trademark notices from the Source Code of the Original Work, as well as any notices of licensing

RE: a proposed change to the OSD

2002-10-25 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
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

RE: a proposed change to the OSD

2002-10-26 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
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

RE: a proposed change to the OSD

2002-10-26 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
. /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

RE: a proposed change to the OSD

2002-10-27 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
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

RE: BXAPL - request for comments

2002-10-27 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Abe Kornelis wrote: However, it does not distinguish between software and programming tools, nor does it distinguish between derived software and what we have termed 'dependent software', which is termed in the LGPL as 'software that uses the Software'. In the rationale for the BXAPL we

RE: click-wrap is legally supportable?

2002-10-28 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
Supposing a developer on my team, who has no authority to enter into contracts for my company, builds a portion of our product using a GPL'd product. You better be able to prove that you have a specific policy against employees doing that, and that you take reasonable steps to prevent it.

RE: a proposed change to the OSD

2002-10-28 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
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

RE: Right to Use

2002-10-29 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
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

RE: Right to Use

2002-10-29 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
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: 'John Cowan'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Right to Use Lawrence E

RE: Right to Use

2002-10-29 Thread Lawrence E. Rosen
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 you

  1   2   3   >