Lawrence E. Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > This scenario argues for permitting click-to-use but not
> > click-to-redistribute.
>
> Yes, but also requiring my redistributors to implement click-to-use.
One presumes that would be the intent of the license.
--
http://www.tuxedo.o
> 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
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 comm
Lawrence E. Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In order to satisfy my attorney's concerns that the above provisions be
> enforceable, I am instructed to ensure that there is a clear
> manifestation of assent to my license. (My attorney has read Specht v.
> Netscape.) I wish to do this by a click-wrap
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 als
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 telli
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
>I welcome your feedback.
>
>
"Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,
perpetual, non-sublicenseable license to do the following:"
Does not re-distribution amount to sublicense?
Regards,
Mahesh T. Pai.
___
7 matches
Mail list logo
