Regarding "consideration":
The sharing of open source software among users worldwide is consideration
enough for all of us to enforce our licenses!
Bruce Perens is right. Please comment on THAT. Kevin and Florian worry too much
about simple concepts about "consideration" in U.S. and U.K. law.
/Larry
From: License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org> On Behalf
Of Bruce Perens
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 8:38 AM
To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process
We went over this in Jacobsen v. Katzer. I testified (and the court agreed)
that there _was_ consideration in Open Source licenses, although it was
non-monetary.
Thanks
Bruce
On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 4:39 AM Kevin P. Fleming <kevin+...@km6g.us
<mailto:kevin%2b...@km6g.us> > wrote:
One of my colleagues (who strongly prefers public domain dedications
and permissive licenses) recently indicated to me that in his opinion
as a software author, the obligation to distribute source code
qualified as 'consideration', since it requires a tangible (to some
degree) action on the part of the licensee. I had never thought about
it this way, but I can definitely see how someone could arrive at that
conclusion, and this seems to align with Florian's concern.
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 9:14 AM Florian Weimer <f...@deneb.enyo.de
<mailto:f...@deneb.enyo.de> > wrote:
>
> * Lawrence Rosen:
>
> > But let us nevertheless agree on a pragmatic definition of "open
> > source software".
>
> > “Open source software” means software actually distributed under terms
> > that grant a copyright and patent license from all contributors to the
> > software for every licensee to access and use the complete source
> > code, make copies of the software or derivative works thereof and,
> > without payment of royalties or other consideration, to distribute the
> > unmodified or modified software.
>
> I think “consideration” is a bad word, it's difficult to understand
> for those of us who were not brought up in the English legal
> tradition.
>
> I'd be worried that “no other consideration” would exclude copyleft
> licenses, or more broadly speaking, licenses that use copyright as a
> tool to get the licensee to perform any additional action that is not
> inherently tied to exploitation of the copyright itself.
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> <mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
<mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org>
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
