Subject: RE: A prototype License Wizard up and running
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:42:01 -0700

Bruce Perens wrote:
> Larry doesn't feel that the GPL's reciprocal terms would hold up in
> court.

Yes I do.

> >The OSL looks like the GPL, but Rosen's interpretation puts it in
> >effect in the same class as the MPL/CPL/CDDL.
> >
> And whether or not Larry is right, I'm not going to use his license in a
> context in which he feels it does not apply. If it were ever litigated,
> Larry would testify about his opinion and that would sink any other
> interpretation.

No it wouldn't. I'm not the sole interpreter of the meaning even of my own
words. No attorney is.

/Larry Rosen

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, technology law offices (www.rosenlaw.com)
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: Bruce Perens [mailto:bruce@perens.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 10:50 PM
> To: John Cowan
> Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: A prototype License Wizard up and running
> 
> Did my original posting go out on the list? It was HTML mail, I was
> worried that the server might block it.
> 
> John Cowan wrote:
> 
> >I thought of that, but GPL-compatibility is an issue to a lot of people.
> >
> >
> The licenses in the range I suggested are the GPL, GPL-with-exception,
> and BSD. The BSD is GPL-compatible, and I can achieve pretty much any
> business purpose with that range.
> 
> >This is the FSF's view of the GPL, but not Rosen's view of it.
> >
> >
> Larry doesn't feel that the GPL's reciprocal terms would hold up in
> court. Attorneys are divided on this. Rosen: no, Peterson: yes (I
> think), Samuelson: "we don't know", Cloud: "I'm looking for an answer
> too", Moglen: yes. And we have had one or two preliminary court findings
> that say "yes", and one case not concerning the GPL that might say "no",
> and the fact that nobody's wanted to be the victim of a test case also
> says "yes".
> 
> >The OSL looks like the GPL, but Rosen's interpretation puts it in
> >effect in the same class as the MPL/CPL/CDDL.
> >
> >
> And whether or not Larry is right, I'm not going to use his license in a
> context in which he feels it does not apply. If it were ever litigated,
> Larry would testify about his opinion and that would sink any other
> interpretation.
> 
> >It depends on whether the audience is business people or developers.
> >I was aiming at developers, being one myself.  There is also no reason
> >why there should be only one wizard.
> >
> >
> I reject that business people and developers are different audiences. We
> have not been training business people that the GPL is an excellent
> vehicle for restraining your competition. Once they understand that,
> they do not have so much of a problem with it. They've been viewing the
> GPL as if they were always the recipients rather than the grantor.
> 
> > The wording won't help you. It's a matter of whether you interpret
> > works which include library works as derivative works or not, and
> > that's in the purview of the law, not the license.
> 
> If you feel it's a problem you will need to use contract law to solve
> it. And it's not clear that the licenses you were suggesting do that. Do
> you have a license to suggest that does?
> 
>     Thanks
> 
>     Bruce