Rod,
If all that is being taken from an original work are its underlying ideas,
then of course copyright doesn't matter.
But what if we want to encourage folks to make copies of works, or modify
them, or distribute them. Doesn't an open source license make it clear that
those things are doable
John Cowan wrote:
YAAL and I am not, but I think this case is narrowly fact-based and
doesn't portend squat. It depends critically on the fact that Verio
snarfed Register.com's data over and over, even though they should
have known after the first one what the story was. The court's
apple
Alex Rousskov wrote:
Is there any active cooperation between OSI leaders and CC leaders to
build a common interface to good software licenses? Or are we going
to see yet another fragmentation here?
What makes you think there isn't already active cooperation? I know from
personal experience
, they may not use our
certification mark. We don't care what they look like.
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, technology law offices
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.rosenlaw.com
-Original Message-
From: Alex Rousskov
John Cowan wrote:
Their licenses can reach out to control what you and your whole family
had for dinner on June 1, 1999. At least according to them.
That is unreasonable. No court would enforce that.
On the other hand, perhaps they can control what I have for dinner AFTER I
enter into a
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, technology law offices
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.rosenlaw.com
-Original Message-
From: Evan Prodromou [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 11:59 AM
To: license
page includes an invalid copyright notice, an
improper and infringing use of OSI's trademark, and is misleading. It is NOT
a sufficient disclaimer to say Approval Pending - Sample Only! on this
publicly available webpage that is not authorized by OSI.
Please change it.
/Larry Rosen
Lawrence Rosen
/why_we_use_the_lgpl.pdf.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, technology law offices (www.rosenlaw.com)
General counsel, Open Source Initiative (www.opensource.org)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
license-discuss archive is at http
the sorts of transformations of
software that result in the creation of a derivative work. In the meantime,
I have found no case that even suggests that the mere linking of one
black-box program to another results in the creation of a derivative work of
either. And why should it?
/Larry
Lawrence
, the third meaning corresponds to the creation of a
derivative work.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, technology law offices (www.rosenlaw.com)
General counsel, Open Source Initiative (www.opensource.org)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243
email: [EMAIL
, including Sun's. I think they help
customers to select software that meets important standards. I just don't
like it when companies try to force free software to bear certification
marks its authors may not want or need.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, technology law offices (www.rosenlaw.com
allows. What part, after all, of my license is
copyrightable subject matter? Everything? We've made copyright so expansive
that I expect to see such notices on graffiti soon.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, technology law offices (www.rosenlaw.com)
General counsel, Open Source Initiative
a derivative work. If GPL advocates insist upon distinguishing among
types of functional linking, then talented software engineers will avoid
disputes by building shims, APIs, or use dynamic linking to accomplish their
functional goals. More power to them!
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag
Chad Perrin wrote:
Take the most restrictive reasonable interpretation of both if you want
to play it safe.
That's true as far as it goes but leaves out the fun part of the analysis.
The evaluation of risk -- particularly legal risk -- involves the analysis
of many factors. Sometimes the most
that the public domain isn't quite as safe as licenses.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
Bruce Perens wrote:
Despite the fact that Larry and those law review folks are sure about
the linking question, every party who would benefit from a case going
according to Larry's interpretation has settled their case with the GPL
licensor rather than invest what is necessary for a court to
Mike Milinkovich wrote:
I don't disagree with this, but I feel obliged to point out that
truly independent open source softare developers sometimes make available
combinations of code which violate license terms. And their work is
then included in the work of others. Given the ease with which
Karl, those are excellent FAQ entries! They summarize quite well the
non-consensus reached on our lists. Good work! /Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
Cell: 707-478-8932
-Original Message-
From
-bean.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 3:39 PM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com
Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Draft of new OSI licenses landing page;
please review.
Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com writes:
There is no way that OSI is qualified to recommend
that matters!
/Larry
[1] http://www.codeproject.com/info/cpol10.aspx
[2] http://osrc.blackducksoftware.com/data/licenses/
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
Cell: 707-478-8932
---BeginMessage---
Hi all
Karl Fogel wrote:
It makes sense to tune the page toward one special kind of visitor: a
person who doesn't know much about licenses, doesn't feel the need to
get expert help, and is just going to pick one.
I would probably recommend to someone who doesn't really care about his
copyright other
I can find no record of approval of the Academic Free License prior to
3.0. As of 2006-10-31, we were linking to /licenses/afl-3.0.php,
and now of course we link to http://opensource.org/licenses/AFL-3.0.
http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://opensource.org/licenses/* is your
friend.
that nonsensical list.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242
-Original Message-
From: Luis Villa [mailto:l...@tieguy.org]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 9:17 AM
To: License Discuss
Karl Fogel wrote:
As has been explained multiple times, Luis's current proposal is intentionally
based on something that was determined a long time ago, and he is doing it this
way in order to be able to take one small step now -- and not have it
bottlenecked by the larger more complex
Gervase Markham wrote:
I'd add that, given that the MPL 2 is used by both Mozilla and LibreOffice,
two very substantial projects, I'd say it pretty much fits the criteria on
its own merits even without support from the large body of MPL 1.1+ software
out there.
I fully agree with the general
that collapsed?
-russ
Lawrence Rosen writes:
Russ, have you ever experienced that inferiority in actual open source
software?
/Larry (from my tablet and brief)
Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
Oleksandr Gavenko writes:
Moral Rights:
Only some countries claim Moral Rights
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Can copyrights be abandoned to the public
domain?
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Lawrence Rosen
mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote:
Russ Nelson asked:
Larry, have you ever been driving
. I'd almost welcome litigation about this issue so that we
can expunge morality from software.
If you want to worry about copyright law, consider 17 USC 203. [1] Tell me
what you experience as you drive over that bridge
/Larry
[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/203
Lawrence Rosen
at 2:37 PM, Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote:
Is distribution of the *link* to the license sufficient compliance with this
requirement?
For CC and MPL 2, yes.
MIT and many others? The conventional interpretation is no.
Luis
/Larry (from my tablet and brief)
Luis Villa l
; and reminded the world that only OSI could bless a revised
license as open source.
Here's what section 16 of the OSL says:
16) Modification of This License. This License is Copyright C 2005 Lawrence
Rosen. Permission is granted to copy, distribute, or communicate this
License without modification
Circuit, they can't own the law.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242
-Original Message-
From: Grahame Grieve [mailto:grah...@healthintersections.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03
Rick Moen wrote:
I certainly never turn up my nose if someone offers me promissory
estoppel, but I'm not sure a licence steward venting an amateur
opinion[1] about the copyrightability of his/her creation establishes
estoppel.
Let me suggest a way around this issue. Remember that I started
Count my vote as NO for the same reason that Nigel gave.
Count me also as frustrated that OSI continues to silence the arguments
against your license categorizations!
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office
superseded or
withdrawn by the author.
Good luck doing this with scientific precision.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242
-Original Message-
From: Luis Villa [mailto:l
* determination of whether
the resulting work is or is not a derivative work for which source code must
be disclosed?
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242
-Original Message-
From: Ken
here actually contend that the difference between these two licenses
lies in the definition of a derivative work? Or that the GPL and LGPL impose
different burdens on licensees depending upon what kind of derivative work they
create?
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law
permission to write video games with their own music under licenses of their
choice.
/Larry
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242
From
language and the technology).
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242
-Original Message-
From: Richard Fontana [mailto:rfont...@redhat.com]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 6:54 AM
I note that the plaintiff in the Jacobsen v Katzer case won on appeal to the
CAFC. So reading the judge's decision in the district court is kind of
irrelevant at this point.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Richard Fontana wrote:
One missile: The idea that you would need a lawyer, competent or
otherwise, to be involved in such review, though personally appealing
from a guild-aggrandizement standpoint, seems highly dubious, and
probably sends the wrong message.
Dear Richard, my fellow
Nirk Niggler asked:
I realize including the entire contents is repetitive, but is there
an official statement or court case that would justify merely
saying MIT rather than including the full license?
Is there an official statement or court case that would justify going 56 MPH
in a
Luis Villa asked:
Are you suggesting OSI should give legal advice, Larry? :)
I asked the question that way only to see if you are actually paying
attention here.
Members of this OSI list frequently give advice, although they preface it
with IANAL or please don't listen to me. When it comes to
, contractual agreement. But it isn't.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242
Linkedin profile: http://linkd.in/XXpHyu
-Original Message-
From: Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkov
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Idea for time-dependent license, need
comments
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
It is a nice idea in principle, but it falls flat in practice. Courts
usually require more than just a claim of joint authorship
Pamela Chestek wrote:
To clarify, a joint owner could authorize use of the work under a license
that is different from the original license, but that doesn't effect a
change of the license altogether. The original license, from the other joint
author(s), remains, so what you really would have is
proven to be sometimes bad judges of license suckiness. Such categories
won't help much, given the wide differences of opinions and business
models around here.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485
Richard Stallman wrote:
I considered it a problematical compromise. At least it gave us free
software after a year.
Precisely my point: FOSS is better late than never.
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: Richard Stallman [mailto:r...@gnu.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:24 PM
Eben Moglen wrote:
This isn't a matter for copyright licensing, because licenses are, in J.L.
Austin's term,
performative utterances. They are present acts of permission, not
declarations of
future intention, like testaments. There's no point in a copyright holder
writing a
license that says
...@gonzalezmosier.com
Subject: RE: [License-discuss] Open Source Eventually License Development
On Friday, 16 August 2013, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
In the more traditional legal analysis, regardless of the wisdom of
such a license, we prefer to treat written promises relating to
future actions as binding
In a strange way, Eben, I relish our occasional online discussions, if only
to see how long it will take you to compare me with a first-year law
student. :-)
Voilà! Less than a day!
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah
Dear Eben,
You wanted to cut short our conversation, but I believe it is important to
clarify the arguments you made about the enforceability, through specific
performance, of a software license.
It is ironic that you wrote: Specific performance, a mandatory remedial
order to perform a promise,
Eben Moglen explained:
Yes, that's the alternative I originally recommended and that we
have been discussing Larry Rosen's objection to. The agreement
between D and O might be one designed to create a fiduciary
relationship, of special trust and accountability, to which the
legal system
Dear Eben and others,
Here's another interesting case, this one perhaps more directly related to
the designation of someone as a trusted and accountable fiduciary for
licensing intellectual property:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Patents_Company
/Larry
I'll elect to focus on Eben's legal arguments rather than his ad hominem
attacks. I do so with the intent of alerting the rest of this list to his
misstatements of the law, not to try to educate him.
Eben is right that a license can terminate before its terms are completely
executed, for reasons
: John Cowan [mailto:co...@mercury.ccil.org]
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 11:37 AM
To: Lawrence Rosen
Cc: 'Eben Moglen'; license-discuss@opensource.org; mark.atw...@hp.com;
ka...@gnome.org; r...@gnu.org; nat...@gonzalezmosier.com; mo...@askmonty.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Open Source
...@mercury.ccil.org]
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 11:37 AM
To: Lawrence Rosen
Cc: 'Eben Moglen'; license-discuss@opensource.org; mark.atw...@hp.com;
ka...@gnome.org; r...@gnu.org; nat...@gonzalezmosier.com; mo...@askmonty.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Open Source Eventually License Development
and law professors' articles so prolix?
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@mercury.ccil.org]
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 2:05 PM
To: Lawrence Rosen
Cc: 'Eben Moglen'; license-discuss@opensource.org; mark.atw...@hp.com;
ka...@gnome.org; r...@gnu.org; nat
Pamela Chestek wrote:
I'm still having a hard time reconciling this with the also-held belief
that
license proliferation is bad.
Perhaps, but the license proliferation issue is not quite helpful when
phrased that way. It isn't that MORE licenses are necessarily bad. Instead,
say that the
Message-
From: Bradley M. Kuhn [mailto:bk...@ebb.org]
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 9:20 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser
choosealicense.com launched.
Lawrence Rosen wrote at 16:47 (EDT) on Tuesday:
Perhaps, but the license
: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 9:15 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser
choosealicense.com launched.
Larry,
Lawrence Rosen wrote at 18:29 (EDT) on Saturday:
Just don't try to create *derivative works* by mixing them in that
special and unusual
choosers
that ignore legal analysis.
If you believe that this or any other list is overflowing, open your drain
wider.
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: Luis Villa [mailto:l...@lu.is]
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 8:26 AM
To: License Discuss; Lawrence Rosen; Bradley M. Kuhn
Subject: Re
-Original Message-
From: Bradley M. Kuhn [mailto:bk...@ebb.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 8:00 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: [License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open source
license chooser choosealicense.com launched.)
Lawrence Rosen wrote at 17
Bradley Kuhn asked:
It's odd in that Red Hat is the only entity that I know of to ever claim
this sort of licensing explicitly. Are there any other examples?
When I think of compilation and arrangement copyright on copylefted
software, I'm usually focused on things like the maintainer
Jaeger [mailto:jae...@jbb.de]
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 10:25 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Cc: Bradley M. Kuhn; Lawrence Rosen
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open source
license chooser choosealicense.com
Dear list,
Bradley and Larry have asked me
proprietary parts) under licenses of their choice.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242
Linkedin profile: http://linkd.in/XXpHyu
-Original Message-
From: Nick Yeates [mailto:nyeat
source
license chooser choosealicense.com
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
Does the distribution of a GPL-licensed work along with those
separate works convert them into something not separate in the
copyright sense? Does a staple or a paper clip or a book binding
convert separate works to something
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
I would guess that Bob's adding a bunch of calls to syslog() into
Alice's work might create a derivative work of Alice's work, but that
wouldn't convert syslog() itself a derivative work owned by either
Alice or Bob, even if Bob statically linked it with Alice's
-
From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@mercury.ccil.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 12:27 PM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open source
license chooser choosealicense.com
Lawrence Rosen scripsit
and Free Software 2013 - December 11, 2013 in San Francisco (and
web)
9:00 - 9:10 Introduction to the Program
Lawrence Rosen (Rosenlaw Einschlag)
9:10 - 9:30 Setting the Stage: An Introduction to FOSS and Copyright
Concepts
Jim Jagielski (Apache Software Foundation and Red Hat)
9:30 - 10:15
fighting over patent
provisions and has grown accustomed to OSL/AFL/NOSL 3.0.
It has been frustrating to watch people here try to place licenses in broad
categories without understanding fully the subtle differences in their legal
provisions that can have enormous financial impacts.
/Larry
Lawrence
my own history how much of a challenge
this is.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242
Linkedin profile: http://linkd.in/XXpHyu
-Original Message-
From: Luis Villa [mailto:l...@lu.is
How about OSI Approved license? That's what you do.
Larry
Sent from my tablet and thus brief
Simon Phipps webm...@opensource.org wrote:
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
attempts to steer people toward some subset of
those licenses. Especially if you hint that they are in any way, shape or form
standard licenses. That's overreach for which you are not legally qualified.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag ( http://www.rosenlaw.com/ www.rosenlaw.com
for
software.
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: Miles Fidelman [mailto:mfidel...@meetinghouse.net]
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 8:40 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on why
standard licenses?
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Simon
...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on why
standard licenses?
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
Mind you, OSI has described itself as a standards body for open
source licenses for a long time, see http://opensource.org
Hi Philip,
Thanks for the Black Duck Top 20 list of open source licenses. Your list
is the best around, so please don't take the following criticism too
personally. But this list demonstrates that even the ways that we calculate
popularity are flawed. For example:
* Are GPLv2 and
Philip Odence suggested:
Hey maybe well-understood is a good alternative to standard.
Note that the GPL is one of the least-understood licenses around, even by
some of its supporters who make the most outrageous claims about linking.
:-)
/Larry
From: Philip Odence
to the patent problem is the one proposed by
Richard Stallman and lots of others: Prohibit software patents entirely. But
that ain't gonna happen in our lifetimes, so I hope OSI doesn't waste its time
traveling down that particular long and winding road.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw
on this.
/Larry
[1] http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/types/plant_patents.jsp
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag ( http://www.rosenlaw.com/ www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Cell: 707-478-8932
LinkedIn: http://lnkd.in/D9CWhD http://lnkd.in/D9CWhD
From: Patrick
/newsletter1.html. Please direct any
comments or questions or support to cavocont...@gmail.com
mailto:cavocont...@gmail.com .
/Larry
**
Why CAVO Recommends GPLv3 by Lawrence Rosen
There are many ways to distribute software. Valuable software nowadays
Henri, this issue keeps coming up here! On your behalf and on behalf of other
curious readers here on this list, I will ask our Creative Commons friends your
question: Is the CC-SA license GPL-like?
Boldly presaging their answer, I will equivocate: Yes and no.
Yes, it requires
Content
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
Henri, this issue keeps coming up here! On your behalf and on behalf
of other curious readers here on this list, I will ask our Creative
Commons friends your question: Is the CC-SA license GPL-like?
[snip]
Yes, it requires reciprocation by anyone who creates
Could you however elaborate on why the additional restriction
would not be OSD-compliant?
Why are you trying to open source your additional clause forbidding key
disclosure? It is hard for me to recognize such private and confidential
commercial transactions as open source.
Already some
John Cowan wrote:
Open source licenses grant things to whomever has the source code;
Do you mean grant things to whomever accepts the terms and conditions of
the license?
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@mercury.ccil.org]
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015
[side issue below]
John Cowan wrote:
In licensed software, however, there *is* privity of contract.
I'm not sure that's true for sublicensed software. That's why I objected
to the sublicensing provision in a recently-approved license.
Most licenses nowadays fortunately are directly from the
to copyrighted articles!
Lawrence Rosen
If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill.
-Original Message-
From: Pamela Chestek [mailto:pam...@chesteklegal.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 2:34 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Reverse
Nigel and others,
We needn't rely on some DT document to justify our reverse engineering. Here
is what EFF says we can do in the United States:
https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq
Perhaps we can rely on their well-researched legal analysis for now. Someone
complained
:09, Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com
mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote:
Nigel and others,
We needn't rely on some DT document to justify our reverse engineering. Here
is what EFF says we can do in the United States:
https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq
Perhaps we can
Friends,
I presented a few months ago at Santa Clara University about Open Source and
Open Standards http://htlj.org/symposium/speakers/lawrence-rosen/ . If you
get a free hour sometime, play that presentation. Follow that link and enjoy
a legal/software topic. I'm the short chubby guy
.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Maybe we can summarize so far:
ULTRA-STRONG(AGPL)
STRONG (GPL)
MORE THAN WEAK (LGPL)
ALMOST WEAK (EPL)
WEAK(MPL)
VERY WEAK (APACHE)
ULTRA-WEAK (CC0)
This rather simple scale is not reflected in copyright law or any
Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz referred me to this thought-provoking link:
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/eupl/news/meaning-%E2%80%9Ccopyleft%E2
%80%9D-eupl
Can anyone here precisely identify the language in the GPL licenses that
makes it strong rather than weak copyleft? And can anyone
not much of an issue recently in many jurisdictions. :-)
As a self-employed lawyer, I'm glad that not every programmer has the need to
become a lawyer also.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill.
Rosenlaw Einschlag (www.rosenlaw.com
copyright law.
I will lend my horses to others to ride into the sunset if (PLEASE!) attorneys
say something supportive.
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 1:18 PM
To: Legal Discuss; Lawrence Rosen
Subject: Re: Proposal
FYI. /Larry
By Patrick Masson mas...@opensource.org
mailto:mas...@opensource.org .
Here is some general information in our FAQ:
http://opensource.org/faq#approved-licenses-only
Interestingly, as this appears to be increasing (i.e. governments/agencies
looking to adopt open
Gareth, it all depends on what is a work based on the Program. See GPLv2 §0,
part of which is copied below. Opinions on that definition differ.
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by
this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the
with other FOSS software. The above is a relevant open source question to all
of our customers.
Thanks for your thoughts.
/Larry
From: Simon Phipps [mailto:webm...@opensource.org]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 4:51 AM
To: Lawrence Rosen; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License
Nigel, your answer echoes many others:
If I have to start checking every Apache package for GPL code I'll have to
strongly recommend that we approach all Apache packages with caution.
If we amended the proposal to leave out the GPL licenses, would that calm
your concerns?
I'd
/528d46a2e4b059766439fa8b/t/53558db1e4b
0191d0dc6912c/1398115761233/OPL_FAQ_Apr14.pdf.
Should OSI say more than not approved?
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: Allison Randal [mailto:alli...@opensource.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 3:44 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org; Lawrence Rosen
Cc: CAVO
Subject
[cross-posted to legal-discuss@apache and license-discuss@opensource]
[The below is my response to someone else's email on another list. It is
rather legal/technical, but some of you may now understand why I'm not as
afraid of patents as I used to be. I'd like to calm some of you down also
and
1 - 100 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
