RE: Open source shareware?
On Friday, 9 November 2001 11:50 AM David Johnson Wrote: +AD4APg- On Thursday 08 November 2001 08:05 am, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: +AD4APg- +AD4- Can someone point out the OSD violation of a shareware license such as +AD4APg- +AD4- the following? I realize it violates the spirit of the OSD, but I +AD4APg- +AD4- cannot find where it violates the +ACI-letter+ACI- of the OSD. The OSD +is +AD4APg- +AD4- silent on +ACI-use+ACI- and I think this illustrates the problem. +AD4APg- +AD4APg- The OSD may be quiet regarding use, but the law is not. Since the law already +AD4APg- grants the user the right to use the software, the OSD does not need to +AD4APg- specify that. A) I'm not sure shareware as described by Forest truly does violate the spirit of the OSD. Isnt the OSI meant to be pragmatic ? If source code of programs is made public (open) then the OSD is meeting its stated and original objective. If we try to make it say more we are hijacking the stated intent. Perhaps we need to create the Free Software Inititive, but I think someone already did something like that. You don't go to McDonalds to eat Pizza. NOTE : If the OSI is +AF8-really+AF8- intended to to cover other issues then it should clearly state so and thereafter avoid this periodic discussion. Then we know they are now focused on serving Pizza and we can get our hamburgers at Hungy Jacks instead. B) The user has the right to use software sure but only software that they OWN. The term +ACI-OWN+ACI- may not be the appropriate word here as the relationship between the User and the Software is far from being clear and no one law applies throughout the world. To OWN it they must first accept the terms of whatever licence (or contract) is applied to it. If the licence (contract) terms say I need to paint my cat red and that is what I choose to accept then bad luck for the cat. The key point is +ACI-choose to accept+ACI- i.e. I do or I don't and I am not forced to accept it. Nobody is holding a gun to my head or a paintbrush over the cat. Regards, David Davies http://www.intadev.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Open source shareware?
Chris Gehlker wrote: > I realize now that you were talking about owning the media. Oh, there's no doubt that when I buy a book or an audio CD that I own the medium. But I also own *a copy* of the bits encoded on the medium. (This reserves to the copyright owner the five copyright rights still.) In the case of a book, the bits aren't really separable from the medium, but on a CD I can do all sorts of things with the bits, as long as I am not copying them (except as needed to make my CD player work). > It brings up an > interesting question. If I were to buy Win XP and let in register itself to > my computer, is there some way to unregister it so I can sell it? (Assuming > for the sake of argument that someone could be dissatisfied with and MS > product.) No, because (assuming the EULA is enforceable) you don't own even this copy of the bits, so you can't do anything with them that the EULA does not allow. The presence or absence of techno-locks doesn't affect the point. (As to whether bypassing the lock is possible, I don't know; you might also fall afoul of the DCMA.) -- Not to perambulate || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> the corridors || http://www.reutershealth.com during the hours of repose || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan in the boots of ascension. \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Open source shareware?
On 11/9/01 4:06 AM, "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chris Gehlker scripsit: > >> As someone with some code on Open Source disks I'm afraid I can't agree. >> They may own the media. They may own the very generous rights that I granted >> them in the license. They certainly own any improvements that they may have >> made to the original program. But the original program is still mine. > > You are still the *copyright owner*. But the particular *copy* belongs to > the purchaser of the disk -- after all, the ocpy is *on* the disk. > It's like buying a book. When you buy a book (copy), you own that > copy, and you can use it for anything you want (except that you can't > hang the pages of it in your art gallery, because that is public display). > The copyright of the book of course remains with the author or publisher. I realize now that you were talking about owning the media. It brings up an interesting question. If I were to buy Win XP and let in register itself to my computer, is there some way to unregister it so I can sell it? (Assuming for the sake of argument that someone could be dissatisfied with and MS product.) -- Nature will bear the closest inspection. She invites us to lay our eye level with her smallest leaf, and take an insect view of its plain. -Henry David Thoreau, naturalist and author (1817-1862) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Open source shareware?
Angelo Schneider wrote: > What is the Berne Convention? http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html > I only know the term in conjunction with international treties to > respect each others copy right laws. Just so. It also sets minimum standards; for example, the "moral right to be known as the author" is protected in some countries (France) but not others (in the U.S. it is only allowed to visual works, not to textual or audio works). But the right to control the making of derivative works is everywhere protected under Article 12. (There are no longer any important countries outside Berne.) Of course, there are de minimis exceptions: you will not be sued for making marginal notes in your copy of someone else's book, even though book+notes is technically a derivative work, or translating the book into Bulgarian for your own use. But technically these are violations, and cases have turned on them. -- Not to perambulate || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> the corridors || http://www.reutershealth.com during the hours of repose || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan in the boots of ascension. \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Open source shareware?
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc. etc. >From: Angelo Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Open source shareware? >Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 12:28:12 + > >Hi all! > >Angelo Schneider David Johnson: > > > > > On Thursday 08 November 2001 08:05 am, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: > > > > > > As long as this permission notice and disclaimer are included, any > > > person obtaining a copy of this software may distribute this > > > software or derivatives. > > > > Where's my permission to create derivatives? I see that I can distribute > > them, but there's nothing about being able to create them. This is a >crucial > > distinction. As it now stands, I have the right to distribute >derivatives > > created by OTHER people, but not to create them myself. > > > >You do not need a permission to create derivates, IMHO. > >As I understand copyright law creating of a derived work is free for >everyone. >Only redistribution, public performance etc. is regulated. > This is plain wrong in all copyright laws that I am aware of, including Germany. The basic principle is that creation of a derivative work (or whatever the term is in other laws outside the U.S.) is an exclusive right of the copyright owner. That means someone needs either permission from the copyright owner (e.g., license) or rely on some other defense (e.g., fair use, de minimis, etc.). >Angelo > >-- >Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 >76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467 >-- >license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Open source shareware?
On 11/9/01 2:28 AM, "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > on Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 08:37:21PM -0800, Ken Arromdee ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: >> On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Karsten M. Self wrote: >>> Clause 1: >>> >>>"The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale" >>> >>> The terms for payment are interpreted by me to be "sale +time", >>> which in the general case reduces to a required fee for sale or >>> transfer. >> >> Even in the general case, where the time period can be 0, it's not a >> required fee for sale or transfer. You can sell or transfer it to >> anyone you want without a fee--the person you transfer it to just >> can't use it. > > First, I disagree with your reasoning. I feel the terms applied > constitute sale. > > Second, use of a lawfully owned copy of software is not an exclusive > right of the copyright holder, 17 USC 117(a). I know this isn't a democracy but I still vote with Ken. The OSD says that the author, Jane, can't demand a fee from Bill solely because Bill sells or gives a copy of the software to Sally. On it's face, its about "redistribution." It doesn't say anything about "fee for use" and it doesn't ban initial sale. -- Heaven is under our feet as well as over our heads. -Henry David Thoreau, naturalist and author (1817-1862) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Open source shareware?
Angelo Schneider wrote: > You do not need a permission to create derivates, IMHO. > As I understand copyright law creating of a derived work is free for > everyone. Not so under the Berne Convention. -- Not to perambulate || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> the corridors || http://www.reutershealth.com during the hours of repose || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan in the boots of ascension. \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Open source shareware?
On 11/8/01 10:51 PM, "Chris D. Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As I understand it, John was not saying that the person who buys a CD > with a copy of Linux (or whatever) now owns a copyright or anything > like that, but that they own the copy of the data itself. > > Similarly, I own many books. Some of them I bought, some were given > to me, it doesn't really matter how I got them. My ownership of the > book does not in anyway invalidate the rights of the copyright holder > under the copyright law, nor does it grant me additional rights over > those I received under copyright law. > > Chris, if you are claiming that I don't own my copy of Linux on a CD > that I bought, who do you believe does? What distinction are you > trying to draw? > > I can understand that some companies try to "sell" you software > without you actually ending up owning anything in the process (except > possibly certain rights), but I don't think that most open source > licenses work that way. I think I understand the distinction that you are trying to make. I can sell my book to the used book store. I suppose that I can make 20 copies and keep them in a drawer as long as I don't try to sell them or give them away. And I guess I have heard that the some shrink wrap licenses may try to prevent you from selling your copy or making more than one backup. I don't read them very carefully because, to the best of my knowledge, they aren't binding where I live. I guess John's statement was a little strong and I missed his point. There may be a distinction in who owns the media. -- When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President. Now I'm beginning to believe it. -Clarence Darrow, lawyer and author (1857-1938) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Open source shareware?
Open source licenses may be diffuse, but property ownership law is very clear. The law demands a "distinction" in the terms of any exchange in property. Specifically ownership is described in terms of a lease, loan, rent, etc. but it has to be very specific. Otherwise, regardless of Chris' assertion; property ownership is not vague and amorphous. If you give me something, I either own it or I don't. kb -Original Message- From: Chris D. Sloan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 12:51 AM To: Chris Gehlker Cc: Open Source Subject: Re: Open source shareware? As I understand it, John was not saying that the person who buys a CD with a copy of Linux (or whatever) now owns a copyright or anything like that, but that they own the copy of the data itself. Similarly, I own many books. Some of them I bought, some were given to me, it doesn't really matter how I got them. My ownership of the book does not in anyway invalidate the rights of the copyright holder under the copyright law, nor does it grant me additional rights over those I received under copyright law. Chris, if you are claiming that I don't own my copy of Linux on a CD that I bought, who do you believe does? What distinction are you trying to draw? I can understand that some companies try to "sell" you software without you actually ending up owning anything in the process (except possibly certain rights), but I don't think that most open source licenses work that way. Chris On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 07:32:12PM -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote: > On 11/8/01 3:50 PM, "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Under open-source licenses, you do own your copy. For those > > of you who seek novel experiences, go and buy a CD-ROM of a > > Linux or BSD distro; you will have, for perhaps the first > > time, bought software. > > As someone with some code on Open Source disks I'm afraid I can't agree. > They may own the media. They may own the very generous rights that I granted > them in the license. They certainly own any improvements that they may have > made to the original program. But the original program is still mine. > > I never sold software and I never agreed that purchasers of a CD would get > any rights beyond what were explicitly stated in the license. > > Now for the two programs that I released under the BSD or MIT license that > may be a distinction that doesn't make a difference, but for all the rest > there is a real difference. I'm the only one who can take the project > private. > -- > C++: The power, elegance and simplicity of a hand grenade. > > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- Chris Sloan [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Open source shareware?
Hi all! Angelo Schneider David Johnson: > > > On Thursday 08 November 2001 08:05 am, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: > > > > As long as this permission notice and disclaimer are included, any > > person obtaining a copy of this software may distribute this > > software or derivatives. > > Where's my permission to create derivatives? I see that I can distribute > them, but there's nothing about being able to create them. This is a crucial > distinction. As it now stands, I have the right to distribute derivatives > created by OTHER people, but not to create them myself. > You do not need a permission to create derivates, IMHO. As I understand copyright law creating of a derived work is free for everyone. Only redistribution, public performance etc. is regulated. Angelo -- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Open source shareware?
Karsten, I you lost me on this. Why does time determine the terms of a sale? Ken Brown -Original Message- From: Karsten M. Self [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 4:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Open source shareware? on Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 08:37:21PM -0800, Ken Arromdee ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > Clause 1: > > > >"The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale" > > > > The terms for payment are interpreted by me to be "sale +time", > > which in the general case reduces to a required fee for sale or > > transfer. > > Even in the general case, where the time period can be 0, it's not a > required fee for sale or transfer. You can sell or transfer it to > anyone you want without a fee--the person you transfer it to just > can't use it. First, I disagree with your reasoning. I feel the terms applied constitute sale. Second, use of a lawfully owned copy of software is not an exclusive right of the copyright holder, 17 USC 117(a). -- Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Open source shareware?
Chris Gehlker scripsit: > As someone with some code on Open Source disks I'm afraid I can't agree. > They may own the media. They may own the very generous rights that I granted > them in the license. They certainly own any improvements that they may have > made to the original program. But the original program is still mine. You are still the *copyright owner*. But the particular *copy* belongs to the purchaser of the disk -- after all, the ocpy is *on* the disk. It's like buying a book. When you buy a book (copy), you own that copy, and you can use it for anything you want (except that you can't hang the pages of it in your art gallery, because that is public display). The copyright of the book of course remains with the author or publisher. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please leave your values| Check your assumptions. In fact, at the front desk. | check your assumptions at the door. --sign in Paris hotel |--Miles Vorkosigan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Open source shareware?
On Thursday 08 November 2001 11:16 pm, David Davies wrote: > To OWN it they must first accept the terms of whatever licence (or > contract) is applied to it. Not at all. This is a myth promulgated by proprietary software companies. If I agree to the license, then I have to follow the license. But if I don't agree to it I can operate under copyright law. And copyright law says I can use the software. Under the US Commerical Code, if I go to a retail store, pay cash for an item, and receive a *sales* receipt, all in a legal manner, then I legally own that product. That includes the CD with Windows on it. I haven't leased or rented it. I don't own the rights to Windows, but I certainly own one particular copy of it, and the says I can legally use that copy. If Microsoft doesn't like it then they can stop offerering it for sale at retail stores. In the case of downloadable shareware the situation is trickier since I haven't purchased it. But the copy in my possession is still a legal copy. I didn't have to agree to anything to obtain it. Just because the author says I have to do something does not make it so. And what if I do pay that $20 fee? I have just been given the right to distribute it to third parties, and third parties are not bound by the agreement I made with the author. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org pgp public key on website -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Open source shareware?
As I understand it, John was not saying that the person who buys a CD with a copy of Linux (or whatever) now owns a copyright or anything like that, but that they own the copy of the data itself. Similarly, I own many books. Some of them I bought, some were given to me, it doesn't really matter how I got them. My ownership of the book does not in anyway invalidate the rights of the copyright holder under the copyright law, nor does it grant me additional rights over those I received under copyright law. Chris, if you are claiming that I don't own my copy of Linux on a CD that I bought, who do you believe does? What distinction are you trying to draw? I can understand that some companies try to "sell" you software without you actually ending up owning anything in the process (except possibly certain rights), but I don't think that most open source licenses work that way. Chris On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 07:32:12PM -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote: > On 11/8/01 3:50 PM, "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Under open-source licenses, you do own your copy. For those > > of you who seek novel experiences, go and buy a CD-ROM of a > > Linux or BSD distro; you will have, for perhaps the first > > time, bought software. > > As someone with some code on Open Source disks I'm afraid I can't agree. > They may own the media. They may own the very generous rights that I granted > them in the license. They certainly own any improvements that they may have > made to the original program. But the original program is still mine. > > I never sold software and I never agreed that purchasers of a CD would get > any rights beyond what were explicitly stated in the license. > > Now for the two programs that I released under the BSD or MIT license that > may be a distinction that doesn't make a difference, but for all the rest > there is a real difference. I'm the only one who can take the project > private. > -- > C++: The power, elegance and simplicity of a hand grenade. > > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- Chris Sloan [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Open source shareware?
On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Karsten M. Self wrote: > Clause 1: > >"The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale" > > The terms for payment are interpreted by me to be "sale +time", which in > the general case reduces to a required fee for sale or transfer. Even in the general case, where the time period can be 0, it's not a required fee for sale or transfer. You can sell or transfer it to anyone you want without a fee--the person you transfer it to just can't use it. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Open source shareware?
On Thursday 08 November 2001 08:05 am, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: > Can someone point out the OSD violation of a shareware > license such as the following? I realize it violates > the spirit of the OSD, but I cannot find where it violates > the "letter" of the OSD. The OSD is silent on "use" and > I think this illustrates the problem. The OSD may be quiet regarding use, but the law is not. Since the law already grants the user the right to use the software, the OSD does not need to specify that. > As long as this permission notice and disclaimer are included, any > person obtaining a copy of this software may distribute this > software or derivatives. Where's my permission to create derivatives? I see that I can distribute them, but there's nothing about being able to create them. This is a crucial distinction. As it now stands, I have the right to distribute derivatives created by OTHER people, but not to create them myself. > If you decide to run the software after a 30 day evaluation period, > you must pay a fee of $20 to Brrzzztt! Look at clause 7. You've paid the $20 bucks and now distribute the software to your friend. Your friend must receive the same rights that you do, including the right to not having to pay the fee anymore. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org pgp public key on website -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Open source shareware?
On 11/8/01 3:50 PM, "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Under open-source licenses, you do own your copy. For those > of you who seek novel experiences, go and buy a CD-ROM of a > Linux or BSD distro; you will have, for perhaps the first > time, bought software. As someone with some code on Open Source disks I'm afraid I can't agree. They may own the media. They may own the very generous rights that I granted them in the license. They certainly own any improvements that they may have made to the original program. But the original program is still mine. I never sold software and I never agreed that purchasers of a CD would get any rights beyond what were explicitly stated in the license. Now for the two programs that I released under the BSD or MIT license that may be a distinction that doesn't make a difference, but for all the rest there is a real difference. I'm the only one who can take the project private. -- C++: The power, elegance and simplicity of a hand grenade. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Open source shareware?
Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: > But back to the shareware question. From that ruling there is > a footnote that confuses me. > >5. Since MAI licensed its software, the Peak customers do > not qualify as "owners" of the software and are not > eligible for protection under 117. > > What does that mean? (I can understand it if the wording > was "Peak does not qualify as owner." But this says that > Peak's customers, who had a valid license from MAI, were > STILL not owners.) Is this a typographical error? Or > does it really mean that when you have a licensed copy of > software, you do not have a copy that you own. Most EULA-type closed source licenses, including MAI's, tell you that you don't own the software and have only licensed the right to use it. Without the UCITA, this may or may not be binding: the courts have disagreed. But assuming that MAI's license was valid, neither Peak nor Peak's customers owned anything at all; the customers had a bare right-to-use, and Peak had squat. Under open-source licenses, you do own your copy. For those of you who seek novel experiences, go and buy a CD-ROM of a Linux or BSD distro; you will have, for perhaps the first time, bought software. >You agree that we own all copies, and you may not copy, >modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except >as expressly provided under this License. You are not >required to accept this License, since you have not signed >it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or >distribute the Program or its derivative works. Who knows what effect that would have? IANAL, TINLA. -- Not to perambulate || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> the corridors || http://www.reutershealth.com during the hours of repose || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan in the boots of ascension. \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Open source shareware?
The theory is that as a licensee, you are NOT an owner. Owners buy products, they do not license, according to the theory. At issue is how one might characterize the transaction involving the distribution of software: is it a sale (which means the first sale doctrine might apply) or is it a license (which might mean ostensibly that the licensor may "withhold" application of the first sale doctrine). Rod Dixon On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: > John Cowan wrote: > > > > USC 117 says (in part): > > > > # [I]t is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer > > # program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation > > # of that computer program provided [...] that such a new copy or > > # adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the > > # computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in > > # no other manner [...]. > > > > > The fact that a > > > copyright holder can control his or her work at the level of a RAM copy > > > may be big trouble for us. Ostensibly, one can hardly "use' software > > > without the author's permission, > > > > > > On the contrary. The above says that you can copy the program if 1) > > you own a copy, 2) you can't use it without copying it, 3) you don't use > > the copy in any other way. > > I read the circuit court ruling "MAI SYSTEMS CORP VS PEAK COMPUTER, > INC" from this URL, >http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/991_F2d_511.htm > > Frustrating reading, and frustrating conclusions. What I take > from it is that if anyone (besides you) services your computer, and > they cannot run your copy of an operating system or other > software to check something for you. > > But back to the shareware question. From that ruling there is > a footnote that confuses me. > >5. Since MAI licensed its software, the Peak customers do > not qualify as "owners" of the software and are not > eligible for protection under 117. > > What does that mean? (I can understand it if the wording > was "Peak does not qualify as owner." But this says that > Peak's customers, who had a valid license from MAI, were > STILL not owners.) Is this a typographical error? Or > does it really mean that when you have a licensed copy of > software, you do not have a copy that you own. > > Under what circumstances am I "owner of a copy" under > US Copyright Act #117? Am I owner of a copy even if > the license says: >You agree that we own all copies, and you may not copy, >modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except >as expressly provided under this License. You are not >required to accept this License, since you have not signed >it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or >distribute the Program or its derivative works. > > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Open source shareware?
Chris Gehlker wrote: > Perhaps a little more realistically, he could say "I have the source and > object code to a GPLed Quake beater game on this zip disk." He could even > let game reviewers play the game on his machine to prove it. "As soon as > 10,000 fanatic gamers chip in $1.00 through PayPal, I'll hand the disk to > their representative." Ah yes, the Busker Protocol. Of course you need an escrow agent, and if someone wants to contribute more than $1, no problem. See http://www.counterpane.com/street_performer.html . -- Not to perambulate || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> the corridors || http://www.reutershealth.com during the hours of repose || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan in the boots of ascension. \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
