Subject: Re: ATT SOURCE CODE AGREEMENT Version 1.2C
From: <mark@pc-intouch.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 11:33:32 -0700 (PDT)



On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:

> The license also places conditions on providing a simple link.
> The legal controversy over "deep links" is unsettled, (has there
> been a ruling in NY?) and I'm of the conviction that providing a
> link is a reference, (and nearly always "fair use") but framing
> is close to plagiarism.
> 
> I dislike seeing licenses which purport to grant rights you
> already have, (or place restrictions on rights you already
> have), but as Bruce says, this clause is outside the scope of
> the OSD.

That's irritating.  It means that someone can write a license that says
that if you use their software you have to eat toasted moose droppings for
breakfast, and it can still qualify as OSD-compliant.

Maybe this is a hole in the OSD.  I'm not sure it would be a bad idea to
add a requirement that the license stay entirely within the scope of the
OSD.  That is, if you're writing a software license, it should be a
*software* license, not a linking-to-our-web-site license, a trademark
license, a certification policy, or a toasted-moose-droppings license.