Re: Critique of "Open Source Licensing" book by Larry Rosen

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Gregory Aharonian <srctran[_at_]world.std.com> wrote:
>
> !20050315 Critique of "Open Source Licensing" book by Larry Rosen
>
> - CRITIQUE OF "OPEN SOURCE LICENSING" BOOK BY LARRY ROSEN
Oh brother. He did it again - sending us a long post (more than 500 lines!) that seems to cure any insomnia. And yet, he did not bother participating in the forum. Let's see if he really responds to this post.

> Across the book, Rosen states at least one thing right: open source licenses
> (and they are licenses, not contracts) rest completely on copyright.

Wrong. Not every violation of license is also violation of copyright law. If a person violates license but does not violate copyright law, under what law can the licensor sue the violator? Contract law, of course. Not every violation of copyright law is violation of license. If a person violates copyright law but does not violate license, under what law can the author sue the violator? Copyright law, of course. If a person violates both copyright law and license, he can be sued under both copyright and contract laws.

Not all licenses are alike. Some are very simple that do not add any extra elements to copyright. Some are very complex that add many more elements to copyright. Many are between two extremes.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo[_at_]voicenet.com>

Number of days left until 1-1-2019 when all knowledge of 1923 in the land of the U.S.A. will be freed from their copyright owners' prisons: 5,033

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain. Received on Wed Mar 23 2005 - 04:20:01 GMT