- From: Jeffry Smith <smith@mclinux.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 13:09:40 -0400 (EDT)
- To: license-discuss@opensource.org
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Joseph Reagle said: >On Friday 07 September 2001 12:01, Jeffry Smith wrote: >> A key point that I've found on Open Source - you place the license on >> REDISTRIBUTION, not use. Remember that, under standard Copyright, the >> user has the right to use the software, but not redistribute new or >> modified copies. The Open Source licenses are what enable that. Thus, >> by only specifying redistribution, you can mimic the GPL, and say, in >> effect "You don't have to agree with this license, but nothing else gives >> you the rights included. Use of these rights indicates acceptance of >> this license." > >I've noted this distinction between an acceptance of a license >(unilateral?) and contract (bilateral?) before [1]; it's an interesting >(and perhaps) important distinction that I don't completely understand yet. > >However, based on this thread I went and had a look and most of the OSI >license *do* restrict use: Although I would argue they don't need the "use" word in there, all of the ones you quote actually grant unlimited use (as in running the program). Except the GPL, which explicitly does not cover use (because copyright covers it). jeff
Received on Friday, 7 September 2001 23:14:39 UTC