Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit:
> There is also the questionable premise that a software license may
> lawfully extinguish the floor and ceiling of derivative works...i.e. under
> copyright law some "modifications" need no permission from the copyright
> holder because they are fair uses, other "
Mitchell, I think you are connecting, but disagreeing that the premise you
raise should result in the conclusion made. Yes, courts disagree about the
meaning of derivative work in certain contexts, but the statute is clear in
other circumstances that the use of "modification" is not. As I see it,
We're not connecting here. My point is that
"derivative work" as used in the copyright statute is
an unclear term. And that the definition of
derivative work varies among jurisdictions. And that
the MPL does not, as Larry suggests, use a "derivative
work" standard for precisely that reason.
I
> From: Rod Dixon [mailto:rod@;cyberspaces.org]
> there is a lot being said here. To clarify one point at a
> time, the use of "derivative work" should be in the copyright
> law sense, not an unusual meaning gleamed from a
> license...whether it is the MPL or any other license. In this
> respe
icusllc.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 7:52 PM
To: David Johnson; Dave Nelson; OpenSource Licensing Discussion Group
Subject: RE: Procedure for using an approved license
Open Source friends,
I've been looking at MPL 1.1 as well. One of the reasons I would
replace the word "Ne
>>Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 7:52 PM
>>To: David Johnson; Dave Nelson; OpenSource Licensing Discussion Group
>>Subject: RE: Procedure for using an approved license
>>
>>
>>Open Source friends,
>>
>>I've been looking at MPL 1.1 as well. One
>*NOTE* MPL 1.2 is solely used in conjecture for the purposes of this email!
>
>
>
>Thanks for help understanding this too!
>James
>
>
>
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>Sent: Sunday, October 06, 200
s email!
Thanks for help understanding this too!
James
-Original Message-
From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 10:03 PM
To: Dave N
2 PM
> To: David Johnson; Dave Nelson; OpenSource Licensing Discussion Group
> Subject: RE: Procedure for using an approved license
>
>
> Open Source friends,
>
> I've been looking at MPL 1.1 as well. One of the reasons I
> would replace the word "Netscape" with
For what it's worth, so far Netscape has been very responsible and careful
about not making ad-hoc changes to their license. Look at the trouble
they've been going to recently, to try and get all of their code
MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-licensed. It would have been easy to take advantage of
their right to
Thanks for help understanding this too!
James
>-Original Message-
>From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 10:03 PM
>To: Dave Nelson; OpenSource Licensing Discussion Group
>Subject: Re: Procedure for using an approved license
>
&g
On Sunday 06 October 2002 02:10 pm, Dave Nelson wrote:
> I wish to use the Mozilla 1.1 license, but don't know the exact
> procedures here.
>
> I copied the Mozilla 1.1 license from your site, replace 'Netscape' with
> my company, and 'Mozilla' with my product, and Netscape trademarks with
> mine.
I wish to use the Mozilla 1.1 license, but don't know the exact
procedures here.
I copied the Mozilla 1.1 license from your site, replace 'Netscape' with
my company, and 'Mozilla' with my product, and Netscape trademarks with
mine. No other changes were made. Then added a line under the title
sta
13 matches
Mail list logo
