[License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

[Lawrence Rosen]

Ken Arromdee wrote:
> Some people use ordinary GPL on libraries with the intent of crippling
> competing commercial reuse (since any competitors have to release 
> their source and competitors wouldn't want to do that).  

Really? That's not wise. 

How would the choice of license affect the *legal* determination of whether
the resulting work is or is not a derivative work for which source code must
be disclosed?

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242


-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Arromdee [mailto:arromdee at rahul.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 2:08 PM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking?
(Attribution Provision)

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012, Rick Moen wrote:
> I conclude that, in general, the overwhelming majority of such 
> entrepreneurs are thus seeking the crippling of competing commercial 
> reuse -- not just attribution.  So, OSI should give them the bum's rush.

Some people use ordinary GPL on libraries with the intent of crippling
competing commercial reuse (since any competitors have to release their
source and competitors wouldn't want to do that).  Is the GPL also
considered unfree when applied to libraries?
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss at opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss