Right to Use
jcowan at reutershealth.com
Tue Oct 29 22:51:30 UTC 2002
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
> But so what? How does that bite? Merely being a distributor makes no
> difference. You only incur the obligation to publish your source code
> when you have created a Derivative Work.
*My* source code, yes. But that's not the problem. Reading the following
"External Deployment" means the _use_ or distribution of the
Original Work [...] to provide services or otherwise deliver
content [Sec. 5, emphasis added];
[A]ny External Deployment by You shall be deemed a distribution
and _shall be licensed to all_ [Sec. 5, emphasis added];
Licensor hereby agrees to provide a machine-readable copy of
the Source Code of the Original Work along with each copy of
the Original Work that Licensor distributes [Section 3].
gives rise to to the following sorites:
Any use of the Original Work (modulo exceptions) is an E.D.;
Any E.D. is a distribution and requires one to be a licensor;
Being a licensor obligates one to provide source code.
> Mere *use* of the software, even to distribute services externally, does
> not make you the creator of a Derivative Work.
No, indeed. But if the use amounts to an E.D., it does make you a
licensor. I admit this is pilpul, but it is an available reading
of the text.
I think the simplest way to block this reading is to insert
"of a Derivative Work" after "External Deployment by You" in the last
sentence of Section 5.
> [1c] does not require that a
> distributor of copies of the Original Work publish the source code of
> the Original Work.
Not directly, no.
> Once again you are misreading the OSL.
You asked more generally (without, I think, reference to the OSL in
particular): Is it not all one whether Amazon physically distributes
a modified program, or keeps the program to itself and distribute the
fruits via the Internet? I said, no, it isn't all one. The former
activity may be banned by copyright or contract; the latter is not just
a special case of it, is clearly not banned by copyright, and should
not be banned by contract.
> Ahhhh. I didn't realize you are a distributor of a modified Elm open
> source program. I'll sue you myself if someone will pay the attorney's
Fortunately, Elm isn't licensed under the OSL, so I am not distributing
it, even though I am (by OSL definitions) Externally Deploying it by
using it to provide content to (inter alia) you.
John Cowan jcowan at reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com
"The competent programmer is fully aware of the strictly limited size of his own
skull; therefore he approaches the programming task in full humility, and among
other things he avoids clever tricks like the plague." --Edsger Dijkstra
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss