> OSL 3.0 is not a license
The Open Software License is not a license? Kind of a bad
name for it then...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen rosenlaw.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 1:05 AM
> To: license-discussopensource.org
> Subject: RE: Re: Question Regarding GPL
>
> > > Read the OSL 3.0 language carefully. Actions
other than
> > those simply
> > > aren't allowed by the license at all. Other
verbs not
> listed aren't
> > > allowed, and those verbs that are listed
"thereby" create
> > derivative works.
> >
> > I did, and the way that I read it suggests that
there is no
> permission
> > for to someone re-implement your program,
borrowing enough creative
> > ideas from yours that the result is a derivative
work under
> copyright.
> > I'm trying to verify whether this is truly the
case, and if it is
> > then whether it is an oversight.
>
> Not an oversight at all. OSL 3.0 is not a license (see
the
> patent grant in §
> 2) to create independent works.
>
> You may not need a license, of course. In the absence
of a
> patent nothing whatsoever prohibits anyone from
"borrowing
> ... ideas" to create an independent work, and the
result is
> not a derivative work. Only expression is protected by
copyright.
>
> /Larry
>
> ** Lawrence Rosen
> ** Rosenlaw & Einschlag, technology law offices
> ** Stanford University School of Law, Lecturer in Law
> ** 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
> ** 707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243
> ** Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software
Freedom
> ** and Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice
Hall 2004)
> ** [www.rosenlaw.com]
>
>
|