John Cowan writes:
> Russell Nelson scripsit:
>
> > How about this legal theory instead
> > of click-wrap: you got the software for free. If you continue to use
> > it, it is because you agree with the terms under which the software is
> > offered. If ever you disagree, you have simply to
John Cowan writes:
> Russell Nelson scripsit:
>
> > At the end of the day, Larry, the community doesn't want to use
> > software for which it has to contract to use.
>
> Amen.
>
> I was reflecting on the Open Software License, and I realized that it is
> not only viral, it is super-vi
Russell Nelson scripsit:
> How about this legal theory instead
> of click-wrap: you got the software for free. If you continue to use
> it, it is because you agree with the terms under which the software is
> offered. If ever you disagree, you have simply to delete the
> software.
You could ver
Russell Nelson scripsit:
> At the end of the day, Larry, the community doesn't want to use
> software for which it has to contract to use.
Amen.
I was reflecting on the Open Software License, and I realized that it is
not only viral, it is super-viral. Essentially everyone who uses the
progra
James E. Harrell, Jr. scripsit:
> I just tried to visit the website to see if BitKeeper's license
> is already OSD approved- but the site isn't there. It's part of my
> argument, so I'll go out on a limb and assume it is OSD approved. If
> not, you can safely ignore part of this email, though it's
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. writes:
>> I understand the desire to develop of a habit and practice that
might
>> ultimately impact the resolution of legal rights in the
somewhat-distant
>> future, but I do not understand the persistent inclination to ignore
how
>> courts have viewed these issues in t
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. writes:
> I understand the desire to develop of a habit and practice that might
> ultimately impact the resolution of legal rights in the somewhat-distant
> future, but I do not understand the persistent inclination to ignore how
> courts have viewed these issues in the p
> "A scholar could lose his fair-use privilege to quote a
> novel ... A library could lose its ability under the
> first-sale doctrine to lend books."
"...a user could lose the ability to execute the software they purchased..."
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
pgp pub
On Saturday 26 October 2002 04:14 pm, James E. Harrell, Jr. wrote:
> Wow- this is quite a militant reaction! I guess maybe I am in the wrong
> place... and it's curious to me why there is so much anger towards the
> commercial entity. To the others in this group- is this representative of
> your Op
(Forwarded from TransHumanTech list; originally from the
Chronicle of Higher Education)
Original Message
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 17:58:59 -0500 (CDT)
From: Premise Checker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Legal Scholars and Library Groups Seek Clarification From
C
>> On the other hand, this provision, either your wording or mine,
might
>> conflict with the following provision in the OSL:
>>
>>5) External Deployment. The term "External Deployment"
>>means the use or distribution of the Original Work or
>>Derivative Works in any way such t
Wow- this is quite a militant reaction! I guess maybe I am in the wrong
place... and it's curious to me why there is so much anger towards the
commercial entity. To the others in this group- is this representative of
your Open Source community at large? Should I crawl back under my rock?
>B) Comm
* Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Calling an open source license a gift is nice semantics, but I am unsure
> what else that description gets us...
>
> Try asking yourself what is the remedy for breach/violation of an open
> source license that the copyright holder/licensor can
Calling an open source license a gift is nice semantics, but I am unsure
what else that description gets us...
Try asking yourself what is the remedy for breach/violation of an open
source license that the copyright holder/licensor can pursue? In answering
the question, it is not enough to say tha
Your are not likely to find a legal meaning (in the copyright law sense) of
"use" restrictions, but it might be helpful to frame the issue in a two-step
analysis: [1] Use restrictions that involve exclusive copyright interests,
and [2] use restrictions that exceed or are outside of the scope of
ex
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. writes:
> Despite the expressed sentiment of some OSI members, I doubt that any lawyer
> would advise support of this change to the OSD, if it pertains to the
> clickwrap issue.
I didn't write it to address the clickwrap issue, although I can see
that it does affect it.
On Saturday 26 October 2002 11:14 am, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > There is some contention regarding whether linking creates a derived
> > work, and exactly one court case on the topic that isn't definitive.
>
> So to allow someone to distribute a statically linked version of
> something lin
From: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> No, it doesn't. The GPL only has a few minor terms covering use. The
> GPL relies on the act of distribution for enforcing its conditions.
And those conditions mostly hinge on the right to create derived works
rather than the right to use.
Bru
On Saturday 26 October 2002 08:36 am, James E. Harrell, Jr. wrote:
> I don't see significant harm in users indicating consent via click-wrap. As
> a
> matter of fact, my lawyers insist on it when I write commercial software.
> Excluding
> such an "action" (which according to our lawyers makes the
Despite the expressed sentiment of some OSI members, I doubt that any lawyer
would advise support of this change to the OSD, if it pertains to the
clickwrap issue.
Rod
Rod Dixon
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Rutgers University Law School - Camden
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cyberspaces.org
From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> but also would need to give them rights to grant use licenses on the
> derivative?
You directly license all users of your portion of the derivative work.
The creator of the derivative work does the same. The alternative is to
propogate a right t
Dr. David Alan Gilbert writes:
> * Bruce Perens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > My only concern is how this would interact with Larry's new license.
>
> Well I was thinking about GPL on libraries since that restricts what you
> are allowed to link the library against; (No I'm not trying to get
John Cowan writes:
> Russell Nelson scripsit:
>
> > I'm going to propose a change the Open Source Definition at our board
> > meeting next Thursday. It is simply this:
> >
> > 0) A license may not restrict use or modification of a lawfully
> > obtained copy of a work.
>
> What about ve
* Bruce Perens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> IANAL, of course.
No problem - neither am I.
> For software, "use" is execution of the software.
>
> Copyright law doesn't speak much of software at all, so we can't rely
> on that for a definition and must look at court cases for precedents.
>
> Cre
Have we ever seen this one before:
http://developer.apple.com/samplecode/Sample_Code/QuickTime/Goodies/
ASCIIMoviePlayerSample/qtplyr.c.htm
"In consideration of your agreement to abide by the following terms,
and subject
to these terms, Apple grants you a personal, non-exclusive license,
From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Can you explain to me (and the list) what the definition of a
> 'use restriction' is?
IANAL, of course.
For software, "use" is execution of the software.
Copyright law doesn't speak much of software at all, so we can't rely
on that for a defin
Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
> I have proposed a click-wrap notice that would allow ONE single notice
> for all the programs in a distribution. I believe that one notice is
> legally sufficient and indeed necessary to obtain affirmative assent to
> the licenses for the individual works comprising
I'm getting tired of repeating myself
I have proposed a click-wrap notice that would allow ONE single notice
for all the programs in a distribution. I believe that one notice is
legally sufficient and indeed necessary to obtain affirmative assent to
the licenses for the individual works compr
Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
> Do you really mean:
>
> A license may not restrict use or modification by the possessor of a
> lawfully obtained copy of a work.
That's what I mean. How can you use or modify something unless you
possess it? Remote control??
But I'm not sure that this particular
Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
> the courts are clear about the importance of such notices for
> contract formation.
What attributes of a license make a contract necessary? I know that
you need a contract to disclaim warranties, but I'm not sure that it's
necessary to disclaim a warranty on a gift.
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
> Russ, if it was your intent to prevent click-wrap notices, then I'm
> While many in the open source community are
> opposed to such notices, I will ALWAYS recommend to my clients that they
> use such notices for their software, and that they require their
> sublicense
> Yes, BitKeeper's public license. But there's also a pending license
> (Sybase) which requires that users indicate their assent to
> the license through click-wrap or equivalent. *Users*.
Russ, if it was your intent to prevent click-wrap notices, then I'm
definitely NOT in favor. While many i
The official site is, indeed, down but my mirror is available should
anyone require use of it:
http://open5ource/opensource.org, other mirrors are available from
there should mine be slow.
Steve Mallett
http://OSDir.com on the O'Reilly Network | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://opensource.org | [EMAIL
Russ & Open Source friends,
I'm fairly new to this group, though immensly interested from a perspective
of how Open Source and for-profit corporations can work together- so please
grant me a *little* bit of leeway. I've tried to stay out of the discussion,
as I am in no way an expert in this field
Giacomo A. Catenazzi writes:
> Russell Nelson wrote:
> > I'm going to propose a change the Open Source Definition at our board
> > meeting next Thursday. It is simply this:
> >
> > 0) A license may not restrict use or modification of a lawfully
> > obtained copy of a work.
> >
> > Anybod
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
From: Nathan Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Sorry to post an OT message, but I wanted to know if other subscribers
that post here get a return message from the Assawompset mail system
something like this (headers appear to be legitimate):
- The ad
* Bruce Perens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> Copyright law spells out a number of rights, including use and creation
> of derived works. GPL attempts to restrict the creation of derived works
> and contends that linking creates a derived work. This position is not a
> use restriction, but may not
Russell Nelson wrote:
I'm going to propose a change the Open Source Definition at our board
meeting next Thursday. It is simply this:
0) A license may not restrict use or modification of a lawfully
obtained copy of a work.
Anybody have problems with this? Does this have any problems?
I've tw
38 matches
Mail list logo
