Don,
“There is also no requirement that I know of to present license terms to a user prior to useage.”
Are you kidding?!!! Do you understand what a contract is? Hysteria aside, that’s your problem. You can’t state terms after the fact!
But that said, was that a part of your plan for Serendipity users? Were you hoping to use the project to broadly distribute your code so you could then announce your terms? Ah!
Brian
Article Summary Per Author?
-
garvinhicking
- Core Developer
- Posts: 30022
- Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 9:45 pm
- Location: Cologne, Germany
- Contact:
Hi!
Discussion is required, but please do not drag this down to a personal level that sounds offending and/or insulting.
From what I've understood Don, the part you quoted was about general usage/license terms and to show them to people before they use/install Serendipity. Not about adding terms to the package that have not been there in first instance.
Regards,
Garvin
Please keep this thread to the factual conversation, and not undermine each others credibility or flame at each other, or I will close this thread.But that said, was that a part of your plan for Serendipity users? Were you hoping to use the project to broadly distribute your code so you could then announce your terms? Ah!
Discussion is required, but please do not drag this down to a personal level that sounds offending and/or insulting.
From what I've understood Don, the part you quoted was about general usage/license terms and to show them to people before they use/install Serendipity. Not about adding terms to the package that have not been there in first instance.
Regards,
Garvin
# Garvin Hicking (s9y Developer)
# Did I help you? Consider making me happy: http://wishes.garv.in/
# or use my PayPal account "paypal {at} supergarv (dot) de"
# My "other" hobby: http://flickr.garv.in/
# Did I help you? Consider making me happy: http://wishes.garv.in/
# or use my PayPal account "paypal {at} supergarv (dot) de"
# My "other" hobby: http://flickr.garv.in/
-
bdconnolly
- Regular
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:37 pm
Okay, this is my final post on the matter. Garvin, you are correct: I have lost my patience. I am sorry. I don’t think what you quoted was flaming but after Don’s continued insults, I certainly was thinking it.
That said, here are the facts:
1. ALL terms of a contract need to be explicit. Parties need to know what they are getting into. There was NO specific/explicit license regarding the use of BP with the Serendipity distribution of 1.2. It was distributed broadly to be used freely.
2. BP itself is a derivative work. It was not written in a clean room.
3. BP is totally dependent on a primary work, Serendipity. It is not a stand alone thing. It is just code that was contributed to an open source project.
4. Serendipity's license states: "Redistribution and use, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer." The terms and conditions for the use of the Serendipity 1.2 distribution have been honored.
Conclusions: Don's diatribe is personal. His claims are legally weak. The position that a copyright holder could retroactively and unilaterally modify terms is ludicrous. Imagine if everyone who's ever written code for this project now to demand all users to put ads on their sites.
Again, pardon my lack of patience.
Sincerely,
Brian Connolly
That said, here are the facts:
1. ALL terms of a contract need to be explicit. Parties need to know what they are getting into. There was NO specific/explicit license regarding the use of BP with the Serendipity distribution of 1.2. It was distributed broadly to be used freely.
2. BP itself is a derivative work. It was not written in a clean room.
3. BP is totally dependent on a primary work, Serendipity. It is not a stand alone thing. It is just code that was contributed to an open source project.
4. Serendipity's license states: "Redistribution and use, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer." The terms and conditions for the use of the Serendipity 1.2 distribution have been honored.
Conclusions: Don's diatribe is personal. His claims are legally weak. The position that a copyright holder could retroactively and unilaterally modify terms is ludicrous. Imagine if everyone who's ever written code for this project now to demand all users to put ads on their sites.
Again, pardon my lack of patience.
Sincerely,
Brian Connolly