OSL 3.0: informing licensees of their rights

[Matthew Seth Flaschen]

The problem is without license notices kept intact, C will not KNOW they 
can GET source code.  You miss the fact that plenty of distributors have 
plenty to hide (i.e. that the code they are distributing is open source).

-Matthew Flaschen

Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>>So imagine A is the author, who licenses to B, who licenses to C.  B
>>removes A's notice of licensing from the executable or the document,
>>and doesn't tell C about the existence of source code, let alone how
>>to get t.  How will C even know to ask for the source, let alone find
>>out his or her other rights under the OSL?
> 
> 
> I'm sorry that I do not understand the problem here. If you need source code
> from any licensor, ask for it. If there is any right you want that you're
> not sure you have, check with your licensor. Why impose notice burdens on
> folks who (when asked) will have nothing to hide, especially when almost
> nobody cares to read the notices anyway? Is there something specific I'm
> missing? /Larry
> 
> Lawrence Rosen
> Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
> Stanford University, 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)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: news [mailto:news at sea.gmane.org] On Behalf Of August Zajonc
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 9:07 AM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: OSL 3.0: informing licensees of their rights
> 
> Sanjoy Mahajan <sanjoy <at> mrao.cam.ac.uk> writes:
> 
> 
>>The OSL 2.1 required the licensor to give the address of a source-code
>>repository (unless source was provided along with the work), but the
>>OSL 3.0 no longer requires that.  How will licensees know that they
>>have broad rights to copy, modify, and distribute the work?  One way
>>is from the notice of licensing, "Licensed under the Open Software
>>License v3.0".  But there's no requirement to retain, in the original
>>work, the notice of licensing.  The source code will still have the
>>notice, but the licensee doesn't have the source.
>>
>>So imagine A is the author, who licenses to B, who licenses to C.  B
>>removes A's notice of licensing from the executable or the document,
>>and doesn't tell C about the existence of source code, let alone how
>>to get t.  How will C even know to ask for the source, let alone find
>>out his or her other rights under the OSL?
>>
>>-Sanjoy
>>
>>
> 
> 
> I share this question.
> 
> In particular, I want to insure, very clearly, that licensees know their
> rights. 
> 
> In the case of a webapp, the focus seems to include license details in the
> source code. That is fine, as long as folks have a clear way to get from
> using
> the application to using the source code. 
> 
> I'd love to force that the license text appear at the bottom of each page
> for
> example, or is otherwise prominently noticed. The attribution notice
> requirements appear satisfied in source code. Is there a standard approach
> to
> requiring prominent end user notice that the application is under the OSL?
> 
> Prominent notice might be one time on account creation or at footer of pages
> in
> my mind at least. 
> 
> 
>