Subject: RE: Re: Question Regarding GPL
From: "David Dillard" <david_dillard@symantec.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 10:36:29 -0500

 Sat, 21 Jan 2006 10:36:29 -0500
> OSL 3.0 is not a license 

The Open Software License is not a license?  Kind of a bad name for it then...



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 1:05 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: RE: Re: Question Regarding GPL
> 
> > > Read the OSL 3.0 language carefully. Actions other than
> > those simply
> > > aren't allowed by the license at all. Other verbs not 
> listed aren't 
> > > allowed, and those verbs that are listed "thereby" create
> > derivative works.
> > 
> > I did, and the way that I read it suggests that there is no 
> permission 
> > for to someone re-implement your program, borrowing enough creative 
> > ideas from yours that the result is a derivative work under 
> copyright.
> >  I'm trying to verify whether this is truly the case, and if it is 
> > then whether it is an oversight.
> 
> Not an oversight at all. OSL 3.0 is not a license (see the 
> patent grant in 
> 2) to create independent works. 
> 
> You may not need a license, of course. In the absence of a 
> patent nothing whatsoever prohibits anyone from "borrowing 
> ... ideas" to create an independent work, and the result is 
> not a derivative work. Only expression is protected by copyright.
> 
> /Larry
> 
> ** Lawrence Rosen
> ** Rosenlaw & Einschlag, technology law offices
> ** Stanford University School of Law, Lecturer in Law
> ** 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)
> ** [www.rosenlaw.com]  
> 
>