Subject: RE: OVPL - wrap-up of objections
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:53:54 -0700

As Andy phrased it below, I agree with him completely. Nobody should rely on
an unsigned copyright assignment, especially one that's buried in an
unsigned open source license. /Larry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wilson, Andrew [mailto:andrew.wilson@intel.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 2:30 PM
> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com; Alex Bligh; license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: RE: OVPL - wrap-up of objections
> 
> Larry Rosen wrote 
> 
> >> I can state with certainty that large US corporations will 
> not accept 
> >> the validity of the "contractual" rights granted under OVPL in the 
> >> absence of a correctly executed agreement between authorized 
> >> representatives of the parties.
> >> Post SCO/IBM, post Sarbanes-Oxley, you would be remiss to 
> accept code 
> >> into your proprietary product absent well-documented 
> rights to do so.
> >
> > Certainly you don't mean to suggest that every open source license, 
> > including the GPL, is unenforceable in the absence of a "correctly
> executed"
> > agreement? Or to suggest that executing open source licenses as
> express
> > contracts is essential for acceptance of open source by companies?
> 
> Certainly I do not!  The key phrase in my posting is 
> "proprietary product," and I am specifically referring to the 
> ID, not to a 3rd party who has simply obtained a copy under 
> OVPL (and would thus have no rights to make OVPL code proprietary).
> I accept the validity of reciprocal open source licenses.
> I am, though, suggesting that an ID would be unwise to rely 
> on the special rights to re-license as proprietary code 
> purportedly granted in a bare license.  I know we would 
> insist on a properly executed agreement with the copyright holder.
> 
> Andy Wilson
> Intel Open Source Technology Center