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 11:26:13 -0700

> However, one might ask if this is public performance. But then there's 
> the issue that the U.S. does not define the public performance right 
> to apply to software.

I don't see that as an issue. The reason public performance is expressly
allowed by the OSL (section 1(d)) is that the license is intended for
applications on more than just software. As for the kind of software
application you're thinking of, adding the phrase "or communicate" wherever
"distribute" is referenced in OSL 3.0 brings it into line with European
usage and also should lessen confusion about the otherwise irrelvant term
"public performance." (See www.rosenlaw.com/DRAFT-OSL3.0.pdf.)

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: Bruce Perens [mailto:bruce@perens.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 11:02 AM
> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> Cc: 'Alex Bligh'; 'Chris Zumbrunn'; license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: OVPL & "Otherwise Make Available" (was RE: 
> Change ot topic,back to OVPL)
> 
> Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> 
> >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.
> >  
> >
> However, one might ask if this is public performance. But then there's 
> the issue that the U.S. does not define the public performance right 
> to apply to software.
> 
>     Thanks
> 
>     Bruce