Bradley Kuhn asked:
It's odd in that Red Hat is the only entity that I know of to ever claim
this sort of licensing explicitly. Are there any other examples?
When I think of compilation and arrangement copyright on copylefted
software, I'm usually focused on things like the maintainer
choosers
that ignore legal analysis.
If you believe that this or any other list is overflowing, open your drain
wider.
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: Luis Villa [mailto:l...@lu.is]
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 8:26 AM
To: License Discuss; Lawrence Rosen; Bradley M. Kuhn
Subject: Re
-Original Message-
From: Bradley M. Kuhn [mailto:bk...@ebb.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 8:00 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: [License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open source
license chooser choosealicense.com launched.)
Lawrence Rosen wrote at 17
: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 9:15 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser
choosealicense.com launched.
Larry,
Lawrence Rosen wrote at 18:29 (EDT) on Saturday:
Just don't try to create *derivative works* by mixing them in that
special and unusual
Message-
From: Bradley M. Kuhn [mailto:bk...@ebb.org]
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 9:20 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser
choosealicense.com launched.
Lawrence Rosen wrote at 16:47 (EDT) on Tuesday:
Perhaps, but the license
Pamela Chestek wrote:
I'm still having a hard time reconciling this with the also-held belief
that
license proliferation is bad.
Perhaps, but the license proliferation issue is not quite helpful when
phrased that way. It isn't that MORE licenses are necessarily bad. Instead,
say that the
: John Cowan [mailto:co...@mercury.ccil.org]
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 11:37 AM
To: Lawrence Rosen
Cc: 'Eben Moglen'; license-discuss@opensource.org; mark.atw...@hp.com;
ka...@gnome.org; r...@gnu.org; nat...@gonzalezmosier.com; mo...@askmonty.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Open Source
...@mercury.ccil.org]
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 11:37 AM
To: Lawrence Rosen
Cc: 'Eben Moglen'; license-discuss@opensource.org; mark.atw...@hp.com;
ka...@gnome.org; r...@gnu.org; nat...@gonzalezmosier.com; mo...@askmonty.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Open Source Eventually License Development
and law professors' articles so prolix?
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@mercury.ccil.org]
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 2:05 PM
To: Lawrence Rosen
Cc: 'Eben Moglen'; license-discuss@opensource.org; mark.atw...@hp.com;
ka...@gnome.org; r...@gnu.org; nat
Dear Eben and others,
Here's another interesting case, this one perhaps more directly related to
the designation of someone as a trusted and accountable fiduciary for
licensing intellectual property:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Patents_Company
/Larry
I'll elect to focus on Eben's legal arguments rather than his ad hominem
attacks. I do so with the intent of alerting the rest of this list to his
misstatements of the law, not to try to educate him.
Eben is right that a license can terminate before its terms are completely
executed, for reasons
Eben Moglen wrote:
This isn't a matter for copyright licensing, because licenses are, in J.L.
Austin's term,
performative utterances. They are present acts of permission, not
declarations of
future intention, like testaments. There's no point in a copyright holder
writing a
license that says
...@gonzalezmosier.com
Subject: RE: [License-discuss] Open Source Eventually License Development
On Friday, 16 August 2013, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
In the more traditional legal analysis, regardless of the wisdom of
such a license, we prefer to treat written promises relating to
future actions as binding
In a strange way, Eben, I relish our occasional online discussions, if only
to see how long it will take you to compare me with a first-year law
student. :-)
Voilà! Less than a day!
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah
Dear Eben,
You wanted to cut short our conversation, but I believe it is important to
clarify the arguments you made about the enforceability, through specific
performance, of a software license.
It is ironic that you wrote: Specific performance, a mandatory remedial
order to perform a promise,
Eben Moglen explained:
Yes, that's the alternative I originally recommended and that we
have been discussing Larry Rosen's objection to. The agreement
between D and O might be one designed to create a fiduciary
relationship, of special trust and accountability, to which the
legal system
proven to be sometimes bad judges of license suckiness. Such categories
won't help much, given the wide differences of opinions and business
models around here.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485
Richard Stallman wrote:
I considered it a problematical compromise. At least it gave us free
software after a year.
Precisely my point: FOSS is better late than never.
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: Richard Stallman [mailto:r...@gnu.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:24 PM
Pamela Chestek wrote:
To clarify, a joint owner could authorize use of the work under a license
that is different from the original license, but that doesn't effect a
change of the license altogether. The original license, from the other joint
author(s), remains, so what you really would have is
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Idea for time-dependent license, need
comments
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
It is a nice idea in principle, but it falls flat in practice. Courts
usually require more than just a claim of joint authorship
, contractual agreement. But it isn't.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242
Linkedin profile: http://linkd.in/XXpHyu
-Original Message-
From: Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkov
Luis Villa asked:
Are you suggesting OSI should give legal advice, Larry? :)
I asked the question that way only to see if you are actually paying
attention here.
Members of this OSI list frequently give advice, although they preface it
with IANAL or please don't listen to me. When it comes to
Nirk Niggler asked:
I realize including the entire contents is repetitive, but is there
an official statement or court case that would justify merely
saying MIT rather than including the full license?
Is there an official statement or court case that would justify going 56 MPH
in a
I note that the plaintiff in the Jacobsen v Katzer case won on appeal to the
CAFC. So reading the judge's decision in the district court is kind of
irrelevant at this point.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Richard Fontana wrote:
One missile: The idea that you would need a lawyer, competent or
otherwise, to be involved in such review, though personally appealing
from a guild-aggrandizement standpoint, seems highly dubious, and
probably sends the wrong message.
Dear Richard, my fellow
language and the technology).
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242
-Original Message-
From: Richard Fontana [mailto:rfont...@redhat.com]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 6:54 AM
permission to write video games with their own music under licenses of their
choice.
/Larry
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242
From
here actually contend that the difference between these two licenses
lies in the definition of a derivative work? Or that the GPL and LGPL impose
different burdens on licensees depending upon what kind of derivative work they
create?
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law
* determination of whether
the resulting work is or is not a derivative work for which source code must
be disclosed?
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242
-Original Message-
From: Ken
superseded or
withdrawn by the author.
Good luck doing this with scientific precision.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242
-Original Message-
From: Luis Villa [mailto:l
Count my vote as NO for the same reason that Nigel gave.
Count me also as frustrated that OSI continues to silence the arguments
against your license categorizations!
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office
Rick Moen wrote:
I certainly never turn up my nose if someone offers me promissory
estoppel, but I'm not sure a licence steward venting an amateur
opinion[1] about the copyrightability of his/her creation establishes
estoppel.
Let me suggest a way around this issue. Remember that I started
Circuit, they can't own the law.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242
-Original Message-
From: Grahame Grieve [mailto:grah...@healthintersections.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03
; and reminded the world that only OSI could bless a revised
license as open source.
Here's what section 16 of the OSL says:
16) Modification of This License. This License is Copyright C 2005 Lawrence
Rosen. Permission is granted to copy, distribute, or communicate this
License without modification
at 2:37 PM, Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote:
Is distribution of the *link* to the license sufficient compliance with this
requirement?
For CC and MPL 2, yes.
MIT and many others? The conventional interpretation is no.
Luis
/Larry (from my tablet and brief)
Luis Villa l
. I'd almost welcome litigation about this issue so that we
can expunge morality from software.
If you want to worry about copyright law, consider 17 USC 203. [1] Tell me
what you experience as you drive over that bridge
/Larry
[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/203
Lawrence Rosen
that collapsed?
-russ
Lawrence Rosen writes:
Russ, have you ever experienced that inferiority in actual open source
software?
/Larry (from my tablet and brief)
Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
Oleksandr Gavenko writes:
Moral Rights:
Only some countries claim Moral Rights
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Can copyrights be abandoned to the public
domain?
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Lawrence Rosen
mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote:
Russ Nelson asked:
Larry, have you ever been driving
Gervase Markham wrote:
I'd add that, given that the MPL 2 is used by both Mozilla and LibreOffice,
two very substantial projects, I'd say it pretty much fits the criteria on
its own merits even without support from the large body of MPL 1.1+ software
out there.
I fully agree with the general
Karl Fogel wrote:
As has been explained multiple times, Luis's current proposal is intentionally
based on something that was determined a long time ago, and he is doing it this
way in order to be able to take one small step now -- and not have it
bottlenecked by the larger more complex
that nonsensical list.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242
-Original Message-
From: Luis Villa [mailto:l...@tieguy.org]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 9:17 AM
To: License Discuss
I can find no record of approval of the Academic Free License prior to
3.0. As of 2006-10-31, we were linking to /licenses/afl-3.0.php,
and now of course we link to http://opensource.org/licenses/AFL-3.0.
http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://opensource.org/licenses/* is your
friend.
-bean.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 3:39 PM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com
Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Draft of new OSI licenses landing page;
please review.
Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com writes:
There is no way that OSI is qualified to recommend
that matters!
/Larry
[1] http://www.codeproject.com/info/cpol10.aspx
[2] http://osrc.blackducksoftware.com/data/licenses/
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
Cell: 707-478-8932
---BeginMessage---
Hi all
Karl Fogel wrote:
It makes sense to tune the page toward one special kind of visitor: a
person who doesn't know much about licenses, doesn't feel the need to
get expert help, and is just going to pick one.
I would probably recommend to someone who doesn't really care about his
copyright other
Karl, those are excellent FAQ entries! They summarize quite well the
non-consensus reached on our lists. Good work! /Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
Cell: 707-478-8932
-Original Message-
From
Bruce Perens wrote:
Despite the fact that Larry and those law review folks are sure about
the linking question, every party who would benefit from a case going
according to Larry's interpretation has settled their case with the GPL
licensor rather than invest what is necessary for a court to
Mike Milinkovich wrote:
I don't disagree with this, but I feel obliged to point out that
truly independent open source softare developers sometimes make available
combinations of code which violate license terms. And their work is
then included in the work of others. Given the ease with which
that the public domain isn't quite as safe as licenses.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
Chad Perrin wrote:
Take the most restrictive reasonable interpretation of both if you want
to play it safe.
That's true as far as it goes but leaves out the fun part of the analysis.
The evaluation of risk -- particularly legal risk -- involves the analysis
of many factors. Sometimes the most
a derivative work. If GPL advocates insist upon distinguishing among
types of functional linking, then talented software engineers will avoid
disputes by building shims, APIs, or use dynamic linking to accomplish their
functional goals. More power to them!
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag
allows. What part, after all, of my license is
copyrightable subject matter? Everything? We've made copyright so expansive
that I expect to see such notices on graffiti soon.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, technology law offices (www.rosenlaw.com)
General counsel, Open Source Initiative
, including Sun's. I think they help
customers to select software that meets important standards. I just don't
like it when companies try to force free software to bear certification
marks its authors may not want or need.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, technology law offices (www.rosenlaw.com
, the third meaning corresponds to the creation of a
derivative work.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, technology law offices (www.rosenlaw.com)
General counsel, Open Source Initiative (www.opensource.org)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243
email: [EMAIL
/why_we_use_the_lgpl.pdf.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, technology law offices (www.rosenlaw.com)
General counsel, Open Source Initiative (www.opensource.org)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
license-discuss archive is at http
the sorts of transformations of
software that result in the creation of a derivative work. In the meantime,
I have found no case that even suggests that the mere linking of one
black-box program to another results in the creation of a derivative work of
either. And why should it?
/Larry
Lawrence
page includes an invalid copyright notice, an
improper and infringing use of OSI's trademark, and is misleading. It is NOT
a sufficient disclaimer to say Approval Pending - Sample Only! on this
publicly available webpage that is not authorized by OSI.
Please change it.
/Larry Rosen
Lawrence Rosen
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, technology law offices
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.rosenlaw.com
-Original Message-
From: Evan Prodromou [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 11:59 AM
To: license
John Cowan wrote:
Their licenses can reach out to control what you and your whole family
had for dinner on June 1, 1999. At least according to them.
That is unreasonable. No court would enforce that.
On the other hand, perhaps they can control what I have for dinner AFTER I
enter into a
John Cowan wrote:
YAAL and I am not, but I think this case is narrowly fact-based and
doesn't portend squat. It depends critically on the fact that Verio
snarfed Register.com's data over and over, even though they should
have known after the first one what the story was. The court's
apple
Alex Rousskov wrote:
Is there any active cooperation between OSI leaders and CC leaders to
build a common interface to good software licenses? Or are we going
to see yet another fragmentation here?
What makes you think there isn't already active cooperation? I know from
personal experience
, they may not use our
certification mark. We don't care what they look like.
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, technology law offices
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.rosenlaw.com
-Original Message-
From: Alex Rousskov
Rod,
If all that is being taken from an original work are its underlying ideas,
then of course copyright doesn't matter.
But what if we want to encourage folks to make copies of works, or modify
them, or distribute them. Doesn't an open source license make it clear that
those things are doable
101 - 163 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
