Subject: RE: license idea (revised)
From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:46:14 -0700

The Open Software License deals with ASP use as follows:

   5) External Deployment. The term "External Deployment" means 
   the use or distribution of the Original Work or Derivative Works
   in any way such that the Original Work or Derivative Works may be
   used by anyone other than You, whether the Original Work or
   Derivative Works are distributed to those persons or made available
   as an application intended for use over a computer network. As an
   express condition for the grants of license hereunder, You agree
   that any External Deployment by You of a Derivative Work shall be
   deemed a distribution and shall be licensed to all under the terms
   of this License, as prescribed in section 1(c) herein. 

/Larry Rosen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@reutershealth.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 2:31 PM
> To: Mark Rafn
> Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: license idea (revised)
> 
> 
> Mark Rafn scripsit:
> 
> > This has been discussed a bit on debian-legal, under the 
> heading "ASP 
> > loophole".  One interesting question is where to draw the 
> line between 
> > use and "deployment".  This e-mail was routed along a box at my ISP 
> > that includes open-source code.  Do I have the right to that code?
> 
> There is also the question of the line between deployment and 
> private use. Suppose I am a consultant of some sort and I 
> accept people's questions in the form of encrypted emails, 
> which contain the question and a credit card number.  I then 
> research the answer (or pull it out of my butt), charge the 
> credit card, and reply.  I am essentially acting as a slow ASP.
> 
> Am I obliged to publish all changes that I make to any OSS 
> which I use in my business?  Presumably not; the right to 
> make private changes is protected by (AFAIK) all open-source 
> licenses including the GPL. Deploying software in an ASP is 
> not IMHO essentially different; it is use, not publication.
> 
> -- 
> We call nothing profound                        
> jcowan@reutershealth.com
> that is not wittily expressed.                  John Cowan
>         --Northrop Frye (improved)              
> http://www.reutershealth.com
> --
> license-discuss archive is at 
> http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
> 

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