OVPL and the OSI Board on Thursday

[Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.]

I agree with Alex.

Since titles, short phrases, and formats are not copyrightable in the U.S., 
what modifications oe type of modifications to a preexisting  open source 
license may properly be viewed as representing an "original work of 
authorship" (i.e. Qualify as a derivative work)?  I suspect most open 
source licenses qualify as Modifications lacking sufficient originality to 
meet the standard for a derivative work.  Of course, a better question is 
whether most open source licenses qualify for copyright in the first place. 
 The issue is somewhat controversial.  I am doubtful that a boilerplate 
license (i.e. A template) would be viewed as copyrightable by most courts.  
More to the point, even if one could successfully persuade a credulous 
judge that an ostensibly boilerplate license is sufficiently original to 
merit copyright protection, the scope of copyright protection would be 
razor-thin indeed.  Although I am open to being convinced otherwise, I have 
not read a persuasive argument to the contrary yet.

Rod

------------
Rod Dixon
www.cyberspaces.org

...... Original Message .......
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:16:57 +0100 Alex Bligh <alex at alex.org.uk> wrote:
>Pablo,
>
>> I understand completely what you mean. But I have two questions, more,
>> how can I say: "systemic"
>>
>> The OVPL, is an improvement of CDDL or just a brand new fork of this one?
>
>It is a brand new fork. The license-back provision is (almost certainly)
>not what is wanted in "mainstream" CDDL. It (incidentally) contains
>some clear-ups.
>
>> Could be "re-forked" the OVPL license for another needs?, what i mean:
>> The brand new changes in OVPL could
>> stop some "future" proliferations, because this would be an importan
>> reason to stop from OVPL to ahead more
>> OVPL proliferations, so, more licenses proliferations.
>
>I'm not sure I quite understand what you're asking here. If the question is
>whether anyone can use the OVPL for any project, the answer is yes. If the
>question is can anyone use the OVPL text to fork into another liense, yes
>(so long as they don't pretend it's the OVPL), but clearly OSI approval is
>another question. If the question is does the license-back provision in
>the OVPL help with license compatibility (and thus help anti-proliferation
>measures), then yes there is that argument (see the FAQ on openvendor.org).
>
>> As you Say, I think tha OVPL could be accepted like an OSI license. The
>> only thing worried about it if more versions
>> of OVPL from You or from another person/group could get some forkes of
>> this license.
>
>In terms of future versions from us, you'll note the version-rolling
>provisions.
>
>In terms of future "forks" by others, you raise an interesting question.
>Should license authors prevent use of their own license terms in
>other people's licenses in the interests of discouraging proliferation?
>
>I don't think that's a good idea. I think it's pretty much up to the author
>how they license things. Proliferation issues are for those who might want
>to use them, or recommend them (OSI etc.). Whilst I respect other license
>authors' views, if we all started from scratch and prohibited others from
>using our improvements, licenses would be MORE incompatible, and open
>source licenses in general would be the worse for it. I think it would
>be somewhat ironic if the open-source community started close-sourcing
>its own license texts. I should note Lawrence Rosen has a powerful
>counterargument re open-sourcing the licenses themselves.
>
>Alex
>