Subject: RE: OVPL & "Otherwise Make Available" (was RE: Change ot topic,back to OVPL)
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 07:32:28 -0700

> > If I relay my mail through an OVPL licensed SMTP server, does that 
> > mean the software was "Otherwise Made Available" to me?
> 
> Yes, I think so. Ditto "externally deployed" as far as the 
> OSL is concerned in my opinion. The licensor has let a third 
> party (you) use the software.
> 
> This triggers the obligation to provide source under both licenses.

Nope. External deployment occurs in the OSL when the software is "used by
anyone other than You," not when it merely delivers email to those people. 

/Larry

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) 
   [Available also at www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm]
 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Bligh [mailto:alex@alex.org.uk] 
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 1:05 AM
> To: Chris Zumbrunn
> Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org; Alex Bligh
> Subject: Re: OVPL & "Otherwise Make Available" (was RE: 
> Change ot topic,back to OVPL)
> 
> 
> 
> --On 26 August 2005 09:59 +0200 Chris Zumbrunn <chris@czv.com> wrote:
> 
> > Adding a definition for "Otherwise Make Available" will make this 
> > intention more enforceable. But such a definition is 
> tricky. Where do 
> > you draw the line?
> 
> See other mail.
> 
> > If I relay my mail through an OVPL licensed SMTP server, does that 
> > mean the software was "Otherwise Made Available" to me?
> 
> Yes, I think so. Ditto "externally deployed" as far as the 
> OSL is concerned in my opinion. The licensor has let a third 
> party (you) use the software.
> 
> This triggers the obligation to provide source under both licenses.
> 
> Alex