Never mind, someone pointed out the error of my ways...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Dillard [mailto:david_dillard symantec.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 10:36 AM
> To: lrosenrosenlaw.com
> Cc: license-discussopensource.org
> Subject: RE: Re: Question Regarding GPL
>
> > 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:lrosenrosenlaw.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]
> >
> >
>
|