OSL 3.0 Explained
alexander.terekhov at gmail.com
Thu Feb 7 17:56:02 UTC 2008
In the meantime to L-D FAQ editor(s): here's my suggestion for the FAQ.
Q) How come that http://rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0-explained.htm says that
the OSL is drafted as a UNILATERAL (not bilateral) contract (see e.g.
"Bilateral Versus Unilateral Contracts" at
http://www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=30968) at the same time insisting on
EULA-like manifestation of assent to the terms? ("If You distribute or
communicate copies of the Original Work or a Derivative Work, You must
make a reasonable effort under the circumstances to obtain the express
assent of recipients to the terms of this License.")
A) It appears to be the same sort of OSL legal science paradox as the
pretence that a copyright license somehow applies to material objects
such as (see 17 USC 101) "COPIES" (in addition to intangible WORK).
"This Open Software License (the "License") applies to any original
work of authorship (the "Original Work") whose owner (the "Licensor")
has placed the following licensing notice adjacent to the copyright
notice for the Original Work ... proviso that copies of Original Work
or Derivative Works that You distribute or communicate shall be
licensed under this Open Software License".
Corrections are welcome. Ben Tilly, you go first. :-)
"Notwithstanding Jacobsen's confused discussion of unilateral
contracts, bilateral contracts, implied licenses, "licenses to the
world" and "bare" licenses in his Appellant's Brief, the issue at hand
is fairly simple."
-- Brief of Appellees (CAFC 2008-1001).
On Feb 5, 2008 9:44 PM, Alexander Terekhov <alexander.terekhov at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2008 10:12 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> > My article explaining OSL 3.0 is now available on my website,
> > http://rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0-explained.htm.
> As you may recall I took issue (in private) with "Unilateral Contracts
> And Conditions" part of your submission.
> Now... I, for one, would be really interested to hear your thoughts
> (in public) regarding above mentioned subject in light of
> "F. The District Court correctly found that Katzer did not
> exceed the scope of the license . . . 1) . . . 2) . . . 3)"
> part of
> "Notwithstanding Jacobsen's confused discussion of unilateral
> contracts, bilateral contracts, implied licenses, "licenses to the
> world" and "bare" licenses in his Appellant's Brief, the issue at hand
> is fairly simple."
> -- Brief of Appellees (CAFC 2008-1001).
More information about the License-discuss