Subject: Re: OVPL & "Otherwise Make Available" (was RE: Change ot topic, back to OVPL)
From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <forrest@mibsoftware.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 08:32:32 -0400

Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:

> ...... Original Message .......
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 01:41:10 -0700 Michael Bernstein <webmaven@cox.net> 
> wrote:
> 
>>On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 09:05 +0100, Alex Bligh wrote:
>>
>>>--On 26 August 2005 09:59 +0200 Chris Zumbrunn <chris@czv.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>It seems to me that closing the 'ASP loophole' in combination with the
>>license-back to the ID violates the spirit of the OSD, though I don't
>>think I can explain why.
>>
>>- Michael Bernstein
>>
>>
> 
> Could you at least provide an example of how this might violate the spirit 
> of the OSD? As it stands, it seems perfectly compatible with the OSD to me.
> 
> -Rod
> 

Giving the initial developer an excuse for legal injunctions and fishing
expedition lawsuits seems like a bad idea to me.  ("Your honor, here is
the download record showing that X downloaded our best-in-the-world
spam filter licensed under the OVPL.  We have reason to believe X is
using and distributing this software.  Here is evidence that employee J
of X is filtering spam on his home machine.  We want X to certify that
J is not using a modified version of our software.  They didn't respond
to our written demands.")