Re: Re: Open Source Licensing

Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:

>Mike, do you think the Open Software License
>(www.rosenlaw.com/osl2.0.html) solves those problems? Introduces
>problems? /Larry
>

Larry: Your license is in proper form, and does not use the ambiguous language that the GPL/LGPL does. It still has that patent clause that I wonder about in terms of enforceability (as between the parties, I think it is enforceable, I just wonder about whether it flies if the licensee asserts its patent rights against a third party), however, your license has a properly worded savings clause, so even if that is a problem, the license itself is probably fine. (I don't recall whether the savings clause was discussed in Lasercomb - the copyright misuse case??)

I hope you are successful in getting more people to use it, and not the GPL.

(I notice you have copyrighted the license form itself, and granted a right to copy and distribute it, but no right to modify it (or publicly display?). I am just curious why that would be - it seems to me the right way to protect it [and the way I think OSI has done it] is with trademark rights - i.e. - a person can modify it, but if they do so without your permission, they cannot use the certification mark that OSI has, because the license then does not meet the standards for an open source license as required by OSI? Just curious.)

best regards, mike oliver
Bowie & Jensen, LLC Received on Fri Aug 22 2003 - 20:17:56 GMT