Subject: Re: Fails OSD #1. [Re: OSD compliant shareware]
From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft@mibsoftware.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 09:02:14 -0500 (EST)

Bruce wrote:
> 
> I think it's possible to create any number of licenses that violate the
> spirit of the OSD while following the letter. 

Well, I hope that statement is strong enough encouragement to the
present board members to reject licenses on spirit.  Bruce, did
you read the discussion of the license + conditional patent grant?
Did you think it violated the spirit of the OSD?

> However, I don't think this
> example is one of them. Your #4 doesn't pass OSD #1, which requires that
> sale be permitted.
> 

I should not have written the "licensed not sold" in clause #4.
Perhaps a better license clause 4 would read:

4. If you wish to run the software after agreeing to be bound by
   the terms of this license, you must pay $20 to <copyright holder.>

Do you agree that OSD #1 protects the rights to use only because
of the narrow exception in 17 USC 117? (Narrow because it only
covers essential steps for utilization and only for owners of copies.?)
Should we be comfortable thinking the exception is universal or
permanent?

I am not familiar with international copyright law.  In the U.S.
the DMCA had sweeping changes that I never would have guessed
could have happened, if you had asked me 5 years ago.

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3