"Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." wrote:
[...]
> Having said that, Alexander's mistake appears to be ...
My mistake was the omission of reference (and context) to
the source of my comment.
http://www.digital-law-online.com/lpdi1.0/treatise26.html
(VI.B. Source Code and Object Code)
Even though source
Alexander's point is not exactly correct, but I think the main point was on
target; namely, in addressing questions concerning the copyrightability for
software, the object code is not likely to be treated differently than the
source code. In some cases, the distinction between object code and sou
"Mahesh T. Pai" wrote:
[...]
> General consensus is that binaries are modified/derived versions of
> sources.
AFAIK, The U.S. copyright office doesn't agree (the copyright
office regards the source code and object code as equivalent
for purposes of registration).
regards,
alexander.
--
licens
Bernhard Fastenrath said on Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 12:08:23PM -0500,:
>
>
> SDL, Source Distribution License 1.0
>
Posting in html are not a good idea.
> Distribution of Executable Versions
> Redistribution in any other form than human readable source code i
s and endusers who
are afraid of compilers or just want a binary distribution out of convenience.
In both cases I'm in favor of the idea that the creator of the source code
can earn a bit of money from commercial re-use.
Bernhard
SDL, Source Distribution License 1.0
SDL, Source Distribution L
Brian Behlendorf writes:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > I like mine (well duh!) because it explicitly says that all is fair in
> > love, war, and software use and modification except for a few things.
> > That's also its weakness because the list needs to be right; no more
>
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Russell Nelson wrote:
> I like mine (well duh!) because it explicitly says that all is fair in
> love, war, and software use and modification except for a few things.
> That's also its weakness because the list needs to be right; no more
> and no less.
Actually, it's alright
Quoting Russell Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> They were also wrong. Oh, we *can* stretch the definition, but
> inventing requirements out of whole cloth is an invitation to a party
> -- party to a lawsuit, that is.
I understand (thanks to Lawrence) the reason why this could create
problems main
Rick Moen writes:
> Quoting Russell Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > Oh, it's *always* had to be changed. Anybody could insert
> > restrictions on use into a license and ask us to approve it. Since
> > the OSD says nothing about a license not being allowed to have
> > restrictions on use
Quoting Lawrence E. Rosen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Of course, that makes it even more important for the OSD to be precise,
> and for the OSI board to be rigorous and not arbitrary in its review of
> licenses. That's another reason why I don't like Rick Moen's suggestion
> that OSI merely apply the
On Wednesday 14 August 2002 07:20 am, Russell Nelson wrote:
> I like David's, because it's such a shot across the bows.
> Unfortunately, his suggestion says nothing about modification
> restrictions, such as the GPL's, or BitKeeper's.
That is because I wanted to limit the clause to what the user
On Wednesday 14 August 2002 01:23 am, Rick Moen wrote:
> There will probably always be clever licence provisions to attempt
> subversion of the OSD's intent, no matter how many of them get patched.
> It would save a lot of time and energy to fall back on the rule of
> reason -- and the right of u
> Surely the whole point of a rule of reason is to have a
> middle ground between "arbitrary and capricious" and
> mechanical jurisprudence?
Surely so. Its just that this standard isn't consistent with trademark
law.
The "rule of reason" terminology, by the way, comes from antitrust law.
We k
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
> That's another reason why I don't like Rick Moen's suggestion
> that OSI merely apply the "rule of reason" to its license approval
> process. I have informed the OSI board that, under trademark law, they
> cannot be arbitrary and capricious and still retain ownershi
> Carol A. Kunze wrote:
> This is very helpful. I would add to this list of issues
> the consequences of
> requiring distributors/programmers to enter into complex
> agreements which you need a lawyer to fully comprehend.
One of the benefits of the OSI Certified certification mark is that
use
Carol A. Kunze scripsit:
> Traditional open source (GPL, BSD) follows the first. Proprietary follows the
> third. There is nothing inherently evil about PURE licenses. If you reserve
> title, but give the user all the rights they would have in a sale, plus the
> right to copy, etc., where is th
Rod Dixon wrote:
> I want to summarize what we have discussed on click-wrap because the issue
> is significant from the standpoint of the legal standing of open source
> licenses, and so I can include proposed responses in our research project on
> the OSD.
>
> It is my understanding that the i
John Cowan wrote:
> Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
>
> > Whatever else open source licenses do, they do not explicitly make a
> > licensee the "owner of a copy." To transfer ownership requires a
> > contract; a mere license won't do.
>
> That seems farfetched to me.
>
> . . .
>
> In neither case
Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
> Several people, including Bruce Perens, Russ Nelson, myself, and most
> recently David Johnson, have suggested wording for such an OSD
> provision. None of those versions has caused the others on this list to
> stand up and cheer.
Particularly Bruce's, which he ne
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
> Whatever else open source licenses do, they do not explicitly make a
> licensee the "owner of a copy." To transfer ownership requires a
> contract; a mere license won't do.
That seems farfetched to me.
If I set out a table with cookies on it by the side of the roa
Quoting Russell Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Oh, it's *always* had to be changed. Anybody could insert
> restrictions on use into a license and ask us to approve it. Since
> the OSD says nothing about a license not being allowed to have
> restrictions on use, we would have to approve the licen
Larry's comment sums up my point quite well when he states:
[snip]
> Whatever else open source licenses do, they do not explicitly make a
> licensee the "owner of a copy."
The implications of the licensee not being an "owner" of the copy of
software he/she has possession of go directly to Bernste
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 10:43 pm, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> Whatever else open source licenses do, they do not explicitly make a
> licensee the "owner of a copy." To transfer ownership requires a
> contract; a mere license won't do.
What about the gift of a copy of the software, as in a down
d burdens on users.
That's where you came in, Rod.
/Larry Rosen
> -Original Message-
> From: Rod Dixon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 10:37 PM
> To: David Johnson; Carol A. Kunze
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Legal soundness comes
> But the use of the software is not an exclusive right of the
> author. That's
> why click-wrap is problematic.
I understood the point that Rod Dixon was making is that section 117(a)
of the Copyright Act applies, by its own words, to "owners of a copy" as
distinguished from "licensees." If t
Wednesday, August 14, 2002 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: Legal soundness comes to open source distribution
> On Tuesday 13 August 2002 08:30 pm, Carol A. Kunze wrote:
>
> > You have to OWN the copy. When I say that in a proprietary license the
> > licensor reserves title to the copy,
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 09:37 pm, Carol A. Kunze wrote:
> In any event, I am going to have to go back and reread the approved
> licenses to see which ones require entering into an agreement and the
> extent to which downsteam distributors are required to do the same.
Since distribution is an e
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 09:12 pm, Russell Nelson wrote:
> But anyway, feel free to propose language. I've had my shot, and been
> shot down.
I'll number this one zero for traditional reasons:
0) The possessor of a copy of the software must not be required to enter into
or become party to an
David Johnson wrote:
>
> > I still do not understand why the OSI definition would have to change. Why
> > is the requirement for clickwrap any different from those licenses which
> > OSI has blessed and which in fact are intended to be agreements? Can
> > someone clue me in here?
>
> The mai
David Johnson writes:
> On Tuesday 13 August 2002 08:52 pm, Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> > Oh, it's *always* had to be changed. Anybody could insert
> > restrictions on use into a license and ask us to approve it. Since
> > the OSD says nothing about a license not being allowed to have
> > r
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 08:52 pm, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Oh, it's *always* had to be changed. Anybody could insert
> restrictions on use into a license and ask us to approve it. Since
> the OSD says nothing about a license not being allowed to have
> restrictions on use, we would have to app
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 08:30 pm, Carol A. Kunze wrote:
> You have to OWN the copy. When I say that in a proprietary license the
> licensor reserves title to the copy, I am saying the licensor takes the
> view that the user does not OWN the copy.
> ... If you buy a
> house you can do what you
Carol A. Kunze writes:
> Berstein says - "In the United States, once you own a copy of a
> program, you can back it up, compile it, run it, and even modify it
> as necessary, without permission from the copyright holder. See 17
> USC 117. "
>
> You have to OWN the copy. When I say that in
Russell Nelson wrote:
> [ Catching up on mail from ten days ago ]
>
> Carol A. Kunze writes:
> > Here is the theoretical difference between proprietary and traditional (GPL,
> > BSD) free software. With the former the user agrees to a license and does
> > not get title to the copy of the p
I kept my own email short because I knew there were other people, better
qualified to speak on this. Rod, thanks for stepping forward. You
presented the facts more thoroughly than I could. By the way, although you
say you disagree with me, I don't think I disagree with you. I'm not sure
wh
ssage -
From: "Bruce Dodson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Russell Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: Legal soundness comes to open source distribution
> I thought that section 117 was about the r
's opinion nearly as
well.)
Bruce
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: Legal soundness comes to open source distribution
> [ Catching up on mail from ten days
[ Catching up on mail from ten days ago ]
Carol A. Kunze writes:
> Here is the theoretical difference between proprietary and traditional (GPL,
> BSD) free software. With the former the user agrees to a license and does
> not get title to the copy of the program. Without agreeing to the lic
On Sunday 04 August 2002 12:18 am, Mahesh T Pai wrote:
> What is really necessary is a campaign to take Open Source Software
> outside the scope of (compulsory) statutory product liability.
I would hesitate to limit liability on the basis of Open Sourcedness. Rather,
I would base it on the comm
Bruce Perens wrote:
>http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/01-07482.PDF .
>
>
This is the kind of case (the facts disclosed by the case - not the
decision in the legal sense) which arises coz. you claim to provide the
user with one thing, and take away something else without telli
Russell Nelson wrote:
>... it looks like a license without
>click-wrap is weaker at protecting your rights.
>
By definition, Open Source *licenses* permit anybody to re-distribute
without any explicit permission from the author. As has already been
pointed out, if the user does not accept t
David Johnson wrote, in part:
> software. The potential licensee already has rights to install and execute
> the software which they possess. Furthermore, one cannot make the exercise of
> a preexisting right the indication of assent.
>
I think the issue there is "how did they come to possess?
John Cowan writes:
> Russell Nelson scripsit:
>
> > If you could put restrictions on modification, then BitKeeper is open
> > source.
>
> The GPL puts modest restrictions on modification, at least of interactive
> programs.
Indeed. One has to wonder whether the GPL should be an approv
Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
> The MPL (and almost all similar licenses), for example, contains a
> patent grant that specifically applies to "use" and "practice" and it
> disclaims application of those patents to "the combination of the
> Original Code with other software or devices."
But that,
David Johnson writes:
> Click-thru threatens to overturn this fundamental tenet. Regardless of what
> other effects it may have, it will severly damage the philosophical core of
> Open Source.
I share your fear, and brought it to the board at the last meeting.
Allowing contractural licenses
From: "Rod Dixon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> it makes sense to say that clickwrap should not be a mandatory
> requirement of the OSD, but could be approved as appropriate for an open
> source licensor.
I'd better clear this up. There was no proposal for click-wrap to be a
a mandiatory requirement of t
L PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: Legal soundness comes to open source distribution
> Bruce Perens:
> > 1. Is a simple warranty disclaimer that does not require agreement
> >adequate?
>
> From: "Rod Di
Bruce Perens:
> 1. Is a simple warranty disclaimer that does not require agreement
>adequate?
From: "Rod Dixon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I do think the correct answer to the first question is going to
> be yes. In response to question #1, I would ask another question:
> aside from ease on the li
On Saturday 03 August 2002 01:11 pm, Rod Dixon wrote:
> The Netscape-Smart-download case follows the
> prevailing legal climate; namely, the licensor increases the risks of
> losing a legal challenge to the license (either under the enforcement of a
> license provision or the formation of the enti
> > clearly states that a license must not restrict use,
> > modification, or redistribution of the software.
>
> I agree that there should be no restrictions on use, modification, or
> distribution _other_than_those_ necessary to implement the goals of Open
> Source, such a
On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 12:17:10PM -0700, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> Bruce, are you going to respond to any of my other comments besides my
> expression of bafflement?
Sure, no problem.
> Or are you going to simply blame me for the confusion and lack of legal
> understanding on the part of *some
On Saturday 03 August 2002 09:25 am, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> What makes anyone think that this *CONTRACT* will be interpreted by the
> courts strictly under copyright law?
There are several reasons, but I'll go into just one: there is a significant
number of laymen in the community that dou
ehlendorf'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Legal soundness comes to open source distribution
>
>
> > Is there a reference of some sort for this?
>
> It's the case at
> http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/01-07482.PDF
> . IMO it's not all
On Saturday 03 August 2002 06:02 am, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Maybe click-wrap creates more problems than it solves? We need to ask
> the question rather than assuming the answer, as some would have us do.
If it will result in a divided rancorous community, dozens of new licenses
that no one us
there should be no restrictions on use, modification, or
distribution _other_than_those_ necessary to implement the goals of Open
Source, such as disclaiming the warranty, preserving the copyright
statement, mandating source distribution when the licensor chooses that
option, and mandating transmission of th
> On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > From what various legal scholars
> > tell me, a non-contractual license (such as the GPL) cannot
> cause you
> > to give up your warranty rights.
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> Is there a reference of some sort for this? It's ab
Russell Nelson scripsit:
> If you could put restrictions on modification, then BitKeeper is open
> source.
The GPL puts modest restrictions on modification, at least of interactive
programs. All OS licenses, or nearly all, prevent you from modifying
the copyright notices.
--
One art / There
On 2002.08.03 04:20 Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > From what various legal scholars
> > tell me, a non-contractual license (such as the GPL) cannot cause you
> > to give up your warranty rights.
>
> Is there a reference of some sort for this? It's about t
f" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Russell Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 4:20 AM
Subject: Re: Legal soundness comes to open source distribution
> On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > From what various
Brian Behlendorf writes:
> On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > From what various legal scholars
> > tell me, a non-contractual license (such as the GPL) cannot cause you
> > to give up your warranty rights.
>
> Is there a reference of some sort for this? It's about the only solid
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Russell Nelson wrote:
> From what various legal scholars
> tell me, a non-contractual license (such as the GPL) cannot cause you
> to give up your warranty rights.
Is there a reference of some sort for this? It's about the only solid
reason I see to need to go beyond copyrigh
Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
> Then how about a provision of the OSD that reads something like the
> following:
>
> An open source license cannot restrict any fair
> use rights that would be available for a copyrighted
> work in the absence of a license.
>
> That certainly would preve
M. Drew Streib writes:
> Use licenses scare me.
They scare me too. That's why I think we need to change the OSD.
--
-russ nelson http://russnelson.com | New Internet Acronym:
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok |
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice |
Brian Behlendorf writes:
> I see a practical issue - if I install Debian from CD and fire up Mozilla,
> I don't want to have to go through ten dozen different dialog boxes with
I don't like it any more than you do. You're being asked to agree to
give up the right to any warranty. From what va
On Friday 02 August 2002 10:12 am, Mahesh T Pai wrote:
> In such case, the user would have acquired
> the media, (eg:- the CD coming with a magazine) and may or may not be
> aware of the contents. The contents of the same CD can often be
> distributed under different licenses. Here, the issue of
David Johnson (me) wrote:
> I would have no problems with an Open Source license that mandates the use
> of "download-wrap".
One day later and I have come to my senses. Let me rephrase my comment...
I might not have too serious of a problem with an OSS license that mandates
distributors to dis
http://linux.com/article.pl?sid=02/08/02/139208
See discussion.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
begin Lawrence E. Rosen quotation:
> Then how about a provision of the OSD that reads something like the
> following:
>
> An open source license cannot restrict any fair
> use rights that would be available for a copyrighted
> work in the absence of a license.
And which country's
M. Drew Streib wrote: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> A better example:
>
> A benchmark suite is licensed under an OSI license, with the
> use provision that you cannot publish results with the open
> source version of the suite. You may copy it, redistribute
> it, use it internally, etc, but on
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 10:31:36AM -0700, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> Simply because a license is open source doesn't mean that we like the
> license terms or are willing to license it under those terms. It seems
> to me *unreasonable* to require, through some vague OSD provision that
A better ex
Pretty large amount of s/w is distributed in CDs, especially the open
source variety. ( redistribution under the same license terms is one of
the rights under the OSD ). In such case, the user would have acquired
the media, (eg:- the CD coming with a magazine) and may or may not be
aware of
Several packages of GPL'ed software for Win 32 come click wrapped. eg:-
Bloodshed C++ from and audacity. (any body want more
examples?) If you do not click the accept button, the installation aborts.
Mahesh T Pai.
Russell Nelson wrote:
>The time is coming when you won't be able to distribu
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Legal soundness comes to open source distribution
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 09:44:23AM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > agreement potentially having some OSI-conformant-but-really-silly
> > clauses, like "you may not utter the w
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 09:44:23AM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> agreement potentially having some OSI-conformant-but-really-silly clauses,
> like "you may not utter the word 'pancreas' while using our software".
> Even the BSD advertising clause is less of a potential annoyance than this
> cou
On 2 Aug 2002, Russell Nelson wrote:
> The question here is whether we should amend the Open Source
> Definition so that it is clear whether click-wrap licenses are
> allowable or not. We could go either way, but we want to hear from
> you first. Your opinions solicited, and engaged!
I see a pr
Russell Nelson wrote:
> The time is coming when you won't be able to distribute software
> unless you have presented the license to the user and their assent is
> necessary to access the software. Even free software. Our industry
> is maturing and we need to be more legally careful and rigoro
Michael St . Hippolyte writes:
> On 2002.08.01 23:18 Russell Nelson wrote:
> > At the July OSI board meeting last week, we approved the Academic Free
> > License (think MIT/BSD/X11/Apache with a patent grant) and we sent
> > four licenses back for reconsideration.
>
> As someone who has sub
On 2002.08.01 23:18 Russell Nelson wrote:
> At the July OSI board meeting last week, we approved the Academic Free
> License (think MIT/BSD/X11/Apache with a patent grant) and we sent
> four licenses back for reconsideration.
As someone who has submitted a license (the Bento Poetic License), is
t
cial Science Research Network (SSRN) are available
through the following url: http://papers.ssrn.com/author=240132
- Original Message -
From: "David Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Russell Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday,
On Thursday 01 August 2002 08:18 pm, Russell Nelson wrote:
> The submittor had already been asked if that requirement was a
> necessity. She said yes, because of various legal precedents. We
> consulted a few people and yes, it looks like a license without
> click-wrap is weaker at protecting y
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The question here is whether we should amend the Open Source
> Definition so that it is clear whether click-wrap licenses are
> allowable or not. We could go either way, but we want to hear from
> you first. Your opinions solicited, and engaged!
Per
-
From: "Russell Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 11:18 PM
Subject: Legal soundness comes to open source distribution
> At the July OSI board meeting last week, we approved the Academic Free
> License (think MIT/BSD/X1
At the July OSI board meeting last week, we approved the Academic Free
License (think MIT/BSD/X11/Apache with a patent grant) and we sent
four licenses back for reconsideration. Here's the hitch: we were
asked to approve a license which includes a requirement for
click-wrap.
The submittor had al
Karsten M. Self writes:
> - Ensure that sources are distributable.
Not only distributable, but also available.
Sigh. Last time I sat down to rewrite #2, I ended up concluding that
we really need to have *two* OSD's: one describing source code, and
another describing the distribution of a spe
Thorsten Glaser writes:
> This breaks things which do not only consider code being licensed
> under $any_license but any kind of "work" (be it code, documentation,
> books etc.)
OSI certifies software, not documentation, as open source. There are
various documentation licenses out there. We'
Dixitur de Russell Nelson respondebo ad:
(...)
>Good. Close. Better than my previous attempt. What do you think
>of this:
>
>2. Source Code
>
>The license applies to source code. A compiled executable is
>considered a derived work. Such an executable is only open source
>if it
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. writes:
> It's my understanding that OSI is trying to come up with a plan to review
> the OSD.
>From my message that you quoted?? No, no plan, but instead more like
dreams. Larry has told us more than once that the OSD looks to a
lawyer like a computer program written b
ssage-
>From: "Russell Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc:
>Bcc:
>Subj: Re: Section 2 source distribution terms (was Re: GPL vs APSL
(was: YAPL is bad))
>Ty
On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Of course, a big problem with the OSD is that it talks about legal
> requirements, and yet was not touched by a lawyer before being cast
> into stone. Any kind of extensive rewrite probably ought to be done
> by people with actual experience with the
Karsten M. Self writes:
> Proposed language:
>
> 2. Source Code
>
> The license most provide for distribution in source code as well as
> compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with
> source code, there must be a well publicized means of obtaining
> trouble of providing a source CD for all the open source programs that I
> have included in it?
Cf: Section 3 of the GNU GPL, which spells out source distribution
obligations.
You must distribute sources, or a promise to provide same at no more
than cost of physically performing the so
Hi all,
I have a question. I am building a Linux appliance based completely on
open source software. In putting this appliance together I have not
added nor modified a single line of code in any of the open source
applications that I'm using. As this is an appliance and storage space
is limite
92 matches
Mail list logo
