"W. Yip" wrote:
> 1) The (i) nature and (ii) extent of the terms/permissions in OSS licenses.
> OSS Licenses are different from conventional licenses in that they
> (i) place *no* limits on the copying, and (ii) regulate/impose rules on
> subsequent sublicenses by the licensee and (iii) seem to o
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:59:35 -0500, John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"W. Yip" wrote:
>> 1) The (i) nature and (ii) extent of the terms/permissions in OSS licenses.
>> OSS Licenses are different from conventional licenses in that they
>> (i) place *no* limits on the copying, and (ii) regulate
> -Original Message-
> From: W. Yip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:59:35 -0500, John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >"W. Yip" wrote:
> >> 1) The (i) nature and (ii) extent of the terms/permissions in
> OSS licenses.
> >> OSS Licenses are different from conv
I could quibble with a couple of points, but essentially I would say you
have it. (as far as my position, at least)
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
www.cyberspaces.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: W. Yip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 11:34 AM
> To:
W. Yip scripsit:
> Please correct me if I am wrong, but I have the impression that only one
> who owns the copyright can issue a license, hence in the case of
> conventional licenses, the licensee cannot sublicense without express
> permission from the licensor, since the licensee does not own th
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, W. Yip wrote:
> I think his key ambiguity is not the word 'freedom' (which the adage
> 'liberty not price' explains) but instead, his (IMHO) clumsy use of the
> word 'proprietary'. If RMS clarifies this word, I believe his position can
> be consistent with my proposition stat
k his argument
is not circular (even though it appears to be), but it is not revolutionary
either.
Rod
> -Original Message-
> From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 10:55 PM
> To: W. Yip; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: The position RMS t
On Tue, 28 Mar 100 23:34:31 -0500 (EST), John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>W. Yip scripsit:
>> Please correct me if I am wrong, but I have the impression that only one
>> who owns the copyright can issue a license, hence in the case of
>> conventional licenses, the licensee cannot sublicense
"W. Yip" wrote:
> Just so as to ensure we are on the same wavelength, my understanding of
> what is an 'exclusive license' is that '...with an exclusive license, the
> licensee is given the right to perform specified acts to the exclusion of
> all others *including the (copyright owner)'* [1]
Th
9 matches
Mail list logo
