John Funnell scripsit: > I believe it should be possible to restrict usage via copyright > license conditions just as it is possible to restrict almost anything. > E.g. I could put a clause that says licensee must be vegetarian. > Anyone eating meat would not have copyright license benefits and could > be held for infringement. Of course this would not be true open source > but the point is that the copyright license is a mechanism to impose > restrictions outside of copyright law.
I think it very unlikely, however, that a judge would uphold such irrelevant and unreasonable (not to say whimsical) license conditions in what is basically a public license. I have discussed this in previous years under the name of the "moose [excrement]" license. No matter what, if your license mentions moose excrement, that clause will probably be severed. There is, however, the Chicken Dance License: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/26/chicken_dance_open_source_license>. For several reasons given in the article, it is not in fact open source. -- Values of beeta will give rise to dom! John Cowan (5th/6th edition 'mv' said this if you tried http://www.ccil.org/~cowan to rename '.' or '..' entries; see co...@ccil.org http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/odd.html) _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss