RE: Initial Developer's Public License

> With all those $$ legal funds "to protect open source" of lately, > I just wonder whether the time is right for some > vendor-neutral organization to bring the issue of linking > into court. It could > be a friendly, relatively-inexpensive summary judgment action, > oder? Just an idea. Cour

Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1

F. In an effort to track usage and maintain accurate records of the Subject Software, each Recipient, upon receipt of the Subject Software, is requested to register with NASA by visiting the following website: __. Note that each recipient is requeste

Re: Initial Developer's Public License

Ian Lance Taylor wrote: [...] > Who would benefit from taking such an action? The Global Economy, of course. > For a free software organization, the upside is minimal, > and the downside is severe. Really? I see nothing wrong if a free software organization would have to adopt some "EULA" (to

Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Richard Schilling wrote: > I would rather know that more details about the product's use are > being tracked than not. When a company tracks the usage of their > product they have an easier time gaining support from onlookers, > which is good for the product. > > I want to wr

Re: Initial Developer's Public License

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > [...] > > I think it is a pretty big stretch to say that static linking > > does not produce a derivative work of the objects included in > > the link. ... > > With all those $$ legal funds "to protect open source" of la

Re: Inappropriate postings from non-lawyers

> Look, folks the entire purpose of a license of any kind is to have > something to present to a judge in case something goes wrong, and to > clarify what rights are transferred to the end user. ... and since the user is often not a lawyer, those who write licenses should try to strike a balance

Re: Initial Developer's Public License

Ian Lance Taylor wrote: [...] > I think it is a pretty big stretch to say that static linking > does not produce a derivative work of the objects included in > the link. ... With all those $$ legal funds "to protect open source" of lately, I just wonder whether the time is right for some vendor

Re: Inappropriate postings from non-lawyers

Richard Schilling scripsit: > Look, folks the entire purpose of a license of any kind is to have > something to present to a judge in case something goes wrong, and to > clarify what rights are transferred to the end user. The true test of > a license (for open source work in a business) is wh

Re: Inappropriate postings from non-lawyers

Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The arguments that the GPL is invalid are totally bogus. I need to qualify that by saying that I'm referring to the arguments which have appeared recently on the license-discuss list. There are other theories that the GPL, while valid, does not have

Re: Inappropriate postings from non-lawyers

Richard Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I would like to see the opensource.org criteria clarified on the web > pages. It would help clear up some confusion. I suggested a few > changes in an earlier post. The criteria are here: http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php If you want t

Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1

Arnoud Engelfriet scripsit: > Article 5(3) of the BC says: "The enjoyment and the exercise of > these rights ... shall be independent of the existence of protection > in the country of origin of the work." > Article 7(1) puts the duration of protection at life+50, but > article 5(1) states that

Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1

Richard Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Again, I understand that NASA's proposed license does not require tracking, it merely encourages it. We are discussing tracking in the abstract. I could write a much longer response, but I'll try to stick to most salient points. If you think that I

Re: Inappropriate postings from non-lawyers

On 2004.02.13 08:35 Alex Rousskov wrote: On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Richard Schilling wrote: > I post my response because so many times on this list people try to > play "armchair lawyer" and pick apart a license. It's not > appropriate Richard, Could you please point me to this list charter o

Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > But all those works were once in Australian copyright. The question is, > can a work which is born into the public domain in its country of origin > be in copyright anywhere at any time? As far as I understand the Berne Convention, the answer is yes. Article 5(3) of the

Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1

On 2004.02.13 07:38 Ian Lance Taylor wrote: [snip] > I believe that is a misguided concept in open source licensing that > some hold to. Tracking the use of a product does not make a license > non-open source. Open Source licensing deals with accessibility and > cost, but tracking, per se, is not

Re: Initial Developer's Public License

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > John Cowan wrote: > [...] > > Native executables aren't simply collections, however; linkers > > break up and redistribute the individual object files into > > different regions of the executable. > > Do you seriously believe that such details/"l

Re: Initial Developer's Public License

Alexander Terekhov scripsit: > The resulting *compilation* is copyrightable. I think the > distinction "compilation-vs-derivative" is rather obvious. Whereas I think the distinction is very subtle and full of borderline cases, of which the native executable is just one. "First thing you learn wh

Re: Initial Developer's Public License

John Cowan wrote: [...] > I think that it does matter, because static linking produces > something "fixed in a tangible form", which is a basic > requirement of copyrightability. The resulting *compilation* is copyrightable. I think the distinction "compilation-vs-derivative" is rather obvious.

Re: Initial Developer's Public License

Alexander Terekhov scripsit: > Do you seriously believe that such details/"linking analysis" > [whether this or that linker redistributes the individual > object files into different regions, etc.] matters? C'mon, RMS > is right: "it makes no difference whether linking is static or > dynamic."

Re: Initial Developer's Public License

John Cowan wrote: [...] > Native executables aren't simply collections, however; linkers > break up and redistribute the individual object files into > different regions of the executable. Do you seriously believe that such details/"linking analysis" [whether this or that linker redistributes t

Re: For Approval: Lucent Public License Version 1.02

On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 09:59:40AM -0500, David Presotto wrote: > I sent the following in the past (see the Sept 2003 archive) and > never really got a reply. I figured I'ld try again with a slightly > reformated message. > > = > Section 1 > - > > The Lucent Publi

Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1

On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 01:00:47PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Ben Reser wrote: > [...] > > But seriously I don't think there is an OSI certified license > > that includes an indemnification clause. > > Hmm. IPL/CPL section 4? I guess that is an indemnification clause. But it's also pret

Re: U.S. government works in other countries

Richard Schilling scripsit: > The WTO countries are supposed to recognize US copyright, as the US is > supposed to recognize the IP of the other WTO countries. Easier said > then done, but it's there. Indeed. But are the Berne countries supposed to recognize our *non*-copyrights? The U.S. as

Re: U.S. government works in other countries

On 2004.02.12 23:30 John Cowan wrote: The draft NOSA implies that U.S. government works, though in the public domain in the U.S., are subject to copyright in other countries. Is this really true? The Berne Convention seems ambiguous on the case; it seems to me that it doesn't clearly foresee th

Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1

Mark W. Alexander scripsit: > By my reading, Title 17 says that government works are not protected by > copyright. Period. NASA also notes that they are only under the > jurisdiction of U.S. federal law. No U.S. law does, or can, subject > government works to foreign copyright authority. Well, I'

Inappropriate postings from non-lawyers

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Richard Schilling wrote: > I post my response because so many times on this list people try to > play "armchair lawyer" and pick apart a license. It's not > appropriate Richard, Could you please point me to this list charter or guidelines? You seem to imply that on

Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1

On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 09:18:30AM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > Mark W. Alexander scripsit: > > > NASA legal counsel doesn't seem to be aware of the Title 17 restrictions > > on government works. Policy cannot trump Title 17 requirements. > > Adherence to ii, precludes i and iii. > > The actual lic

Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1

Richard Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Specifically, I maintain that copyright and waivers are *not* > determinants of an open source license, and I think it's improtant (if > that's opensource.org criteria as well) to clearly state that. I > would also suggest that as long as distributi

Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1

Richard Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm just saying that a stance that NASA, a US government agency with > "deep pockets", should remove imdenification wording is a haneous > idea. And in general bashing the license on non-licensing issues > doesn't do any good. It actually hurts ope

For Approval: Lucent Public License Version 1.02

I sent the following in the past (see the Sept 2003 archive) and never really got a reply. I figured I'ld try again with a slightly reformated message. = Section 1 - The Lucent Public License version 1.0 was approved in 2003. Since then we've been using it to dist

Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1

Mark W. Alexander scripsit: > NASA legal counsel doesn't seem to be aware of the Title 17 restrictions > on government works. Policy cannot trump Title 17 requirements. > Adherence to ii, precludes i and iii. The actual license (is anyone looking at it but me??) says that no copyright is claimed

Re: Initial Developer's Public License

Alexander Terekhov scripsit: > To my uneducated understanding, that's similar to > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0387954015 > > To me, this book is a "mere aggregation" of papers/works > with some "glue" (start up code, etc ;-) ). Aggregation > doesn't make this whole book [just lik

Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1

On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 12:05:08AM -0800, Richard Schilling wrote: > I'm just saying that a stance that NASA, a US government agency with > "deep pockets", should remove imdenification wording is a haneous > idea. And in general bashing the license on non-licensing issues > doesn't do any good.

RE: Initial Developer's Public License

Err. > Eclipe.org legal FAQ I meant . To: "Ann W. Harrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject:RE: Initial Developer's Public License "Ann W. Harrison" wrote: [...] > In th

RE: Initial Developer's Public License

"Ann W. Harrison" wrote: [...] > In this example, the commercial tool would probably be a > single executable and not a set of libraries or plug-ins. > To my understanding, that's similar to a User's Guide to > Version 9 based on, extending and correcting the Guide > for Version 8. To my uneducate

Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1

Ben Reser wrote: [...] > But seriously I don't think there is an OSI certified license > that includes an indemnification clause. Hmm. IPL/CPL section 4? regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1

On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 01:09:47AM -0800, Richard Schilling wrote: > Maybe it's just me, but I keep getting back to open source software > licenses as a means to efficiently distribute software and allow people > ready access to the knowledge it represents, and not so much as a > mechanism to tr

Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1

Maybe it's just me, but I keep getting back to open source software licenses as a means to efficiently distribute software and allow people ready access to the knowledge it represents, and not so much as a mechanism to try a get license-savvy organizations to let their guard down. On 2004.02.1

Re: net-snmp license

On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 05:28:48PM -0500, Mark W. Alexander wrote: > Hi all, > > Has the net-snmp license (http://www.net-snmp.org/COPYING.txt) been > specifically OSI approved or rejected. It's "bsd-like", but OSI > certification goes a long way towards selling it to management as "safe" > to use

Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1

On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 12:05:08AM -0800, Richard Schilling wrote: > The OSI can do what it wants. My preference is to see all discussions > the OSI endorses regarding licenses be done in the context of > legitimate legal analysis (which is done by lawyers) and well trained > laypeople. You me

Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1

On 2004.02.12 20:42 Ian Lance Taylor wrote: Richard Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Such provisions are not allowed in an open source license. Reporting > > requirements are viewed as unreasonable limitations on the rights of > > licensees to do anything they want internally with open so