On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 2:15 AM, Alexander Terekhov
wrote:
> This may be of interest to lawyers and non-lawyers on these
> (license-rev...@opensource.org, license-discuss@opensource.org,
> bo...@opensource.org) lists:
>
> The European Court of Justice, upcoming preliminary ruling on software
> firs
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:53 PM, John Cowan wrote:
[...]
> I think this language is much too strong. It's true that there is no
> treaty or statutory language allowing abandonment, ...
Certainly there is statutory language, e.g.:
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/exsum.html
"Waiver of Moral Rig
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
> [Moving this back over to license-discuss where it _still_ belongs,
> thank you.]
>
> Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com):
>
>> [paring the distribution list]
>
> Previously CC'd to Basingstoke and back, I wouldn't doubt.
For the record
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
[...]
> Abandonment of ownership...
It all boils down to a defense against a claim of IP infringement...
A dedication to the public domain (abandonment) defense is a much
better defense than IP license because it doesn't raise the questions
of ac
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:53 PM, John Cowan wrote:
[...]
> Someone in the other thread raised the points of first sale and patent
> exhaustion, but by the same token I doubt if pulling source code off
> a website counts as a sale: there is neither an express nor an implied
> contract here, I'd say
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
[...]
> a fallback permissive licence, the document's fundamental reason for
> existing is foolhardy: the delusional belief that creative works can be
> safely magicked into the public domain despite a worldwide copyright
> regime, and the equally d
"Smith, McCoy" writes:
>FWIW, the report from the committee (which formed in ’04 but didn’t
>issue a report until ’06) was published here:
>http://www.opensource.org/proliferation
>
>AFAIK, that report didn’t result in a significant amount of voluntary
>deprecation of licenses (at the time, there
On 03/09/2012 11:41 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
As an afterthought, OSI _might_ decide to adopt a policy that all new
licences should at least not disclaim/waive any implicit patent waiver
that might be created against patents held by licensor (estoppel
defence) -- or establish some other minimum requ
Quoting Jim Jagielski (j...@jimjag.com):
> I certainly did not intend to imply you had...
No problem; just taking care to be clear.
As an afterthought, OSI _might_ decide to adopt a policy that all new
licences should at least not disclaim/waive any implicit patent waiver
that might be created a
I would point out that one tangible result from the report was the deprecation
of the Common Public License, in favour of the Eclipse Public License.
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org
+1.613.220.3223
-Original Message-
From: "Smith, McCoy"
Sender: license-discuss-boun...
On Mar 9, 2012, at 1:25 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
>
> Please note that I personally articulated no such position.
I certainly did not intend to imply you had...
Cheers!
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opens
On 03/09/2012 09:49 AM, John Cowan wrote:
Fonts are not documents. What's meant is that the license doesn't apply
to a document created using the font.
Obviously that is what is meant. But what it says is arguably different
from what is meant. A professional would never have made such a silly
FWIW, the report from the committee (which formed in ’04 but didn’t issue a
report until ’06) was published here: http://www.opensource.org/proliferation
AFAIK, that report didn’t result in a significant amount of voluntary
deprecation of licenses (at the time, there were only 4 OSI-approved lic
Quoting Jim Jagielski (j...@jimjag.com):
> But that's not the point... the point is that if we are looking
> at adjusting the OSD, or acceptance/validation of a license, based
> on whether or not it addresses patents, then why aren't we also
> worried about such issues as the export control, etc..
Bruce Perens scripsit:
> They would only be different if the organization became politically
> capable to dis-recommend licenses.
Quite so. I see no sign of that happening. OSI, unlike FSF, has always
been seen as a neutral fact-finder.
> I think my favorite is probably still the SIL font li
Jim Jagielski scripsit:
> I see no difference between the statements "We can't approve this
> because it doesn't address patents" and "We can't approve this
> because it doesn't address the US export laws."
Patently, because a patent owner can opt out of enforcing his patents,
but not out of obey
On 03/09/2012 09:13 AM, John Cowan wrote:
And the results would be different this time, why?
They would only be different if the organization became politically
capable to dis-recommend licenses.
I think my favorite is probably still the SIL font license, where it
says "The requirement for fo
On Mar 9, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Jim Jagielski (j...@jimjag.com):
>
>> BTW: How is this different from, say, the US export control provisions?
>> In both cases, a codebase is encumbered by external, and "localized"
>> restrictions. So does this mean that software distribut
Bruce Perens scripsit:
> If I'm not mistaken, this committee met in 2004? "Time to do it right"
> would be about doing it /over./ Did I miss some announcement?
And the results would be different this time, why?
A good thing that came out of that committee was the beginning of the
process for d
If I'm not mistaken, this committee met in 2004? "Time to do it right"
would be about doing it /over./ Did I miss some announcement?
On 03/09/2012 08:55 AM, John Cowan wrote:
Karl Fogel scripsit:
If you want an organization that recommends licenses, the FSF is happy
to help. I agree that OSI
Quoting Jim Jagielski (j...@jimjag.com):
> BTW: How is this different from, say, the US export control provisions?
> In both cases, a codebase is encumbered by external, and "localized"
> restrictions. So does this mean that software distributed out of
> the US, no matter the OSI license, isn't "r
On Mar 8, 2012, at 3:51 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
>
> Pardon my interjecting, but I think you may have misread Russ's point.
> I _believe_ he was saying that, if a codebase is encumbered by patents
> not available royalty-free (e.g., only under 'RAND' terms), then the
> software in question ends up b
22 matches
Mail list logo
