Quoting Russell Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
They were also wrong. Oh, we *can* stretch the definition, but
inventing requirements out of whole cloth is an invitation to a party
-- party to a lawsuit, that is.
I understand (thanks to Lawrence) the reason why this could create
problems
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Russell Nelson wrote:
I like mine (well duh!) because it explicitly says that all is fair in
love, war, and software use and modification except for a few things.
That's also its weakness because the list needs to be right; no more
and no less.
Actually, it's alright if
Brian Behlendorf writes:
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Russell Nelson wrote:
I like mine (well duh!) because it explicitly says that all is fair in
love, war, and software use and modification except for a few things.
That's also its weakness because the list needs to be right; no more
and
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 10:43 pm, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Whatever else open source licenses do, they do not explicitly make a
licensee the owner of a copy. To transfer ownership requires a
contract; a mere license won't do.
What about the gift of a copy of the software, as in a download
Larry's comment sums up my point quite well when he states:
[snip]
Whatever else open source licenses do, they do not explicitly make a
licensee the owner of a copy.
The implications of the licensee not being an owner of the copy of
software he/she has possession of go directly to Bernstein's
Quoting Russell Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Oh, it's *always* had to be changed. Anybody could insert
restrictions on use into a license and ask us to approve it. Since
the OSD says nothing about a license not being allowed to have
restrictions on use, we would have to approve the license.
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
Whatever else open source licenses do, they do not explicitly make a
licensee the owner of a copy. To transfer ownership requires a
contract; a mere license won't do.
That seems farfetched to me.
If I set out a table with cookies on it by the side of the road
Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
Several people, including Bruce Perens, Russ Nelson, myself, and most
recently David Johnson, have suggested wording for such an OSD
provision. None of those versions has caused the others on this list to
stand up and cheer.
Particularly Bruce's, which he never
John Cowan wrote:
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
Whatever else open source licenses do, they do not explicitly make a
licensee the owner of a copy. To transfer ownership requires a
contract; a mere license won't do.
That seems farfetched to me.
. . .
In neither case is there any
Rod Dixon wrote:
I want to summarize what we have discussed on click-wrap because the issue
is significant from the standpoint of the legal standing of open source
licenses, and so I can include proposed responses in our research project on
the OSD.
It is my understanding that the issue
Carol A. Kunze scripsit:
Traditional open source (GPL, BSD) follows the first. Proprietary follows the
third. There is nothing inherently evil about PURE licenses. If you reserve
title, but give the user all the rights they would have in a sale, plus the
right to copy, etc., where is the
On Wednesday 14 August 2002 01:23 am, Rick Moen wrote:
There will probably always be clever licence provisions to attempt
subversion of the OSD's intent, no matter how many of them get patched.
It would save a lot of time and energy to fall back on the rule of
reason -- and the right of
On Wednesday 14 August 2002 07:20 am, Russell Nelson wrote:
I like David's, because it's such a shot across the bows.
Unfortunately, his suggestion says nothing about modification
restrictions, such as the GPL's, or BitKeeper's.
That is because I wanted to limit the clause to what the user
Quoting Lawrence E. Rosen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Of course, that makes it even more important for the OSD to be precise,
and for the OSI board to be rigorous and not arbitrary in its review of
licenses. That's another reason why I don't like Rick Moen's suggestion
that OSI merely apply the
Rick Moen writes:
Quoting Russell Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Oh, it's *always* had to be changed. Anybody could insert
restrictions on use into a license and ask us to approve it. Since
the OSD says nothing about a license not being allowed to have
restrictions on use, we
I kept my own email short because I knew there were other people, better
qualified to speak on this. Rod, thanks for stepping forward. You
presented the facts more thoroughly than I could. By the way, although you
say you disagree with me, I don't think I disagree with you. I'm not sure
Russell Nelson wrote:
[ Catching up on mail from ten days ago ]
Carol A. Kunze writes:
Here is the theoretical difference between proprietary and traditional (GPL,
BSD) free software. With the former the user agrees to a license and does
not get title to the copy of the program.
Carol A. Kunze writes:
Berstein says - In the United States, once you own a copy of a
program, you can back it up, compile it, run it, and even modify it
as necessary, without permission from the copyright holder. See 17
USC 117.
You have to OWN the copy. When I say that in a
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 08:30 pm, Carol A. Kunze wrote:
You have to OWN the copy. When I say that in a proprietary license the
licensor reserves title to the copy, I am saying the licensor takes the
view that the user does not OWN the copy.
... If you buy a
house you can do what you
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 08:52 pm, Russell Nelson wrote:
Oh, it's *always* had to be changed. Anybody could insert
restrictions on use into a license and ask us to approve it. Since
the OSD says nothing about a license not being allowed to have
restrictions on use, we would have to
David Johnson writes:
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 08:52 pm, Russell Nelson wrote:
Oh, it's *always* had to be changed. Anybody could insert
restrictions on use into a license and ask us to approve it. Since
the OSD says nothing about a license not being allowed to have
David Johnson wrote:
I still do not understand why the OSI definition would have to change. Why
is the requirement for clickwrap any different from those licenses which
OSI has blessed and which in fact are intended to be agreements? Can
someone clue me in here?
The main issue in
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 09:12 pm, Russell Nelson wrote:
But anyway, feel free to propose language. I've had my shot, and been
shot down.
I'll number this one zero for traditional reasons:
0) The possessor of a copy of the software must not be required to enter into
or become party to any
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 09:37 pm, Carol A. Kunze wrote:
In any event, I am going to have to go back and reread the approved
licenses to see which ones require entering into an agreement and the
extent to which downsteam distributors are required to do the same.
Since distribution is an
soundness comes to open source distribution
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 08:30 pm, Carol A. Kunze wrote:
You have to OWN the copy. When I say that in a proprietary license the
licensor reserves title to the copy, I am saying the licensor takes the
view that the user does not OWN the copy
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
.
/Larry Rosen
-Original Message-
From: Rod Dixon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 10:37 PM
To: David Johnson; Carol A. Kunze
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Legal soundness comes to open source distribution
I want to summarize what we have discussed
[ Catching up on mail from ten days ago ]
Carol A. Kunze writes:
Here is the theoretical difference between proprietary and traditional (GPL,
BSD) free software. With the former the user agrees to a license and does
not get title to the copy of the program. Without agreeing to the
-
From: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: Legal soundness comes to open source distribution
[ Catching up on mail from ten days ago ]
Carol A. Kunze writes:
Here is the theoretical difference between proprietary
Russell Nelson wrote:
... it looks like a license without
click-wrap is weaker at protecting your rights.
By definition, Open Source *licenses* permit anybody to re-distribute
without any explicit permission from the author. As has already been
pointed out, if the user does not accept the
Bruce Perens wrote:
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/01-07482.PDF .
This is the kind of case (the facts disclosed by the case - not the
decision in the legal sense) which arises coz. you claim to provide the
user with one thing, and take away something else without telling
On Sunday 04 August 2002 12:18 am, Mahesh T Pai wrote:
What is really necessary is a campaign to take Open Source Software
outside the scope of (compulsory) statutory product liability.
I would hesitate to limit liability on the basis of Open Sourcedness. Rather,
I would base it on the
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.
Is there a reference of some sort for this? It's about the only solid
reason I see to need to go beyond copyright
Brian Behlendorf writes:
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.
Is there a reference of some sort for this? It's about the only solid
: Saturday, August 03, 2002 4:20 AM
Subject: Re: Legal soundness comes to open source distribution
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.
Is there a reference
Russell Nelson scripsit:
If you could put restrictions on modification, then BitKeeper is open
source.
The GPL puts modest restrictions on modification, at least of interactive
programs. All OS licenses, or nearly all, prevent you from modifying
the copyright notices.
--
One art / There
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
Is there a reference of some sort for this?
It's the case at
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/01-07482.PDF .
IMO it's not all that germane to warranty disclaimer, and I'm not buying the
chain of extrapolation that leads from this case to the conclusion that
click-wrap might be
On Saturday 03 August 2002 06:02 am, Russell Nelson wrote:
Maybe click-wrap creates more problems than it solves? We need to ask
the question rather than assuming the answer, as some would have us do.
If it will result in a divided rancorous community, dozens of new licenses
that no one
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
On Saturday 03 August 2002 09:25 am, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
What makes anyone think that this *CONTRACT* will be interpreted by the
courts strictly under copyright law?
There are several reasons, but I'll go into just one: there is a significant
number of laymen in the community that
On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 12:17:10PM -0700, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Bruce, are you going to respond to any of my other comments besides my
expression of bafflement?
Sure, no problem.
Or are you going to simply blame me for the confusion and lack of legal
understanding on the part of *some*
I guess I am unsure of why there is such strong opposition to a clickwrap
licensing requirement. The Netscape-Smart-download case follows the
prevailing legal climate; namely, the licensor increases the risks of losing
a legal challenge to the license (either under the enforcement of a license
On Saturday 03 August 2002 01:11 pm, Rod Dixon wrote:
The Netscape-Smart-download case follows the
prevailing legal climate; namely, the licensor increases the risks of
losing a legal challenge to the license (either under the enforcement of a
license provision or the formation of the entire
Bruce Perens:
1. Is a simple warranty disclaimer that does not require agreement
adequate?
From: Rod Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I do think the correct answer to the first question is going to
be yes. In response to question #1, I would ask another question:
aside from ease on the license
Subject: Re: Legal soundness comes to open source distribution
Bruce Perens:
1. Is a simple warranty disclaimer that does not require agreement
adequate?
From: Rod Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I do think the correct answer to the first question is going to
be yes. In response to question #1
From: Rod Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it makes sense to say that clickwrap should not be a mandatory
requirement of the OSD, but could be approved as appropriate for an open
source licensor.
I'd better clear this up. There was no proposal for click-wrap to be a
a mandiatory requirement of the
David Johnson writes:
Click-thru threatens to overturn this fundamental tenet. Regardless of what
other effects it may have, it will severly damage the philosophical core of
Open Source.
I share your fear, and brought it to the board at the last meeting.
Allowing contractural licenses
Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
The MPL (and almost all similar licenses), for example, contains a
patent grant that specifically applies to use and practice and it
disclaims application of those patents to the combination of the
Original Code with other software or devices.
But that, by
John Cowan writes:
Russell Nelson scripsit:
If you could put restrictions on modification, then BitKeeper is open
source.
The GPL puts modest restrictions on modification, at least of interactive
programs.
Indeed. One has to wonder whether the GPL should be an approved
On 2002.08.01 23:18 Russell Nelson wrote:
At the July OSI board meeting last week, we approved the Academic Free
License (think MIT/BSD/X11/Apache with a patent grant) and we sent
four licenses back for reconsideration.
As someone who has submitted a license (the Bento Poetic License), is
Michael St . Hippolyte writes:
On 2002.08.01 23:18 Russell Nelson wrote:
At the July OSI board meeting last week, we approved the Academic Free
License (think MIT/BSD/X11/Apache with a patent grant) and we sent
four licenses back for reconsideration.
As someone who has submitted a
Russell Nelson wrote:
The time is coming when you won't be able to distribute software
unless you have presented the license to the user and their assent is
necessary to access the software. Even free software. Our industry
is maturing and we need to be more legally careful and rigorous.
On 2 Aug 2002, Russell Nelson wrote:
The question here is whether we should amend the Open Source
Definition so that it is clear whether click-wrap licenses are
allowable or not. We could go either way, but we want to hear from
you first. Your opinions solicited, and engaged!
I see a
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 09:44:23AM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
agreement potentially having some OSI-conformant-but-really-silly clauses,
like you may not utter the word 'pancreas' while using our software.
Even the BSD advertising clause is less of a potential annoyance than this
could
all, some major players even consider the GPL to be unreasonable.
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: M. Drew Streib [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 9:49 AM
To: Brian Behlendorf
Cc: Russell Nelson; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Legal soundness comes to open
Several packages of GPL'ed software for Win 32 come click wrapped. eg:-
Bloodshed C++ from www.bloodshed.net and audacity. (any body want more
examples?) If you do not click the accept button, the installation aborts.
Mahesh T Pai.
Russell Nelson wrote:
The time is coming when you won't be
Pretty large amount of s/w is distributed in CDs, especially the open
source variety. ( redistribution under the same license terms is one of
the rights under the OSD ). In such case, the user would have acquired
the media, (eg:- the CD coming with a magazine) and may or may not be
aware of
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 10:31:36AM -0700, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Simply because a license is open source doesn't mean that we like the
license terms or are willing to license it under those terms. It seems
to me *unreasonable* to require, through some vague OSD provision that
A better
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
begin Lawrence E. Rosen quotation:
Then how about a provision of the OSD that reads something like the
following:
An open source license cannot restrict any fair
use rights that would be available for a copyrighted
work in the absence of a license.
And which country's
David Johnson (me) wrote:
I would have no problems with an Open Source license that mandates the use
of download-wrap.
One day later and I have come to my senses. Let me rephrase my comment...
I might not have too serious of a problem with an OSS license that mandates
distributors to
On Friday 02 August 2002 10:12 am, Mahesh T Pai wrote:
In such case, the user would have acquired
the media, (eg:- the CD coming with a magazine) and may or may not be
aware of the contents. The contents of the same CD can often be
distributed under different licenses. Here, the issue of
Brian Behlendorf writes:
I see a practical issue - if I install Debian from CD and fire up Mozilla,
I don't want to have to go through ten dozen different dialog boxes with
I don't like it any more than you do. You're being asked to agree to
give up the right to any warranty. From what
M. Drew Streib writes:
Use licenses scare me.
They scare me too. That's why I think we need to change the OSD.
--
-russ nelson http://russnelson.com | New Internet Acronym:
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok |
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice |
Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
Then how about a provision of the OSD that reads something like the
following:
An open source license cannot restrict any fair
use rights that would be available for a copyrighted
work in the absence of a license.
That certainly would prevent
My response is yes. In fact, the OSD recommendations I am developing as part
of the OSD Model Code proposal will include a suggestion on which article
and what language might be best to accomplish this. I am hoping to post the
complete proposal during the fall semester.
- Rod
Rod Dixon, J.D.,
On Thursday 01 August 2002 08:18 pm, Russell Nelson wrote:
The submittor had already been asked if that requirement was a
necessity. She said yes, because of various legal precedents. We
consulted a few people and yes, it looks like a license without
click-wrap is weaker at protecting your
the following url: http://papers.ssrn.com/author=240132
- Original Message -
From: David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 12:49 AM
Subject: Re: Legal soundness comes to open source distribution
On Thursday 01
69 matches
Mail list logo
