Date: 09 Apr 2002 18:32:48 -0700 From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: "Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@blarg.net>, FreeBSD Chat <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Abuses of the BSD license? Message-ID: <rgk7rgxrr3.7rg@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <3CB37A88.EEB78B79@mindspring.com> References: <200204051922.06556@silver.dt1.binity.net> <3CAE7037.801FB15F@optusnet.com.au> <3CAEA028.186ED53E@optusnet.com.au> <3CAED90B.F4B7905@mindspring.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020406124622.019bfdc8@threespace.com> <3CAF7FB9.3259C392@mindspring.com> <qmu1qmzwkb.1qm@localhost.localdomain> <3CB1196B.403F465D@mindspring.com> <26g026zq9y.026@localhost.localdomain> <3CB14B08.91041978@mindspring.com> <cubscuywc5.scu@localhost.localdomain> <3CB219DA.1B7DFB06@mindspring.com> <y53cy5zryy.cy5@localhost.localdomain> <3CB26D50.7FE4DED4@mindspring.com> <lor8loyeer.8lo@localhost.localdomain> <3CB37A88.EEB78B79@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > "Gary W. Swearingen" wrote: > > > > Whether or not that statement is true, you are not given (even limited) > > exclusive rights and so you are not a proprietor (by your definition and > > mine). Having the responsibilities of a proprietor doesn't make you one > > when you also have the (exclusive, in this case) rights of one. Whoops. That should have been "unless you also have...". > http://www.bitlaw.com/forms/nda.html > http://www.bynari.net/custsw.html (section 6 is particularly meaningful) Nothing suprising there. > The did *NOT* make it available to "the public", they made it > available to "a select group". You could say that about any published work distributed by lease or sales. There must be some restriction on disclosure to be considered unpublished, which there apparently is not in our case. > > Any member of the public who purchases or logs on to (or even sits > > down at) one of those computers is going to have access to the works. > > Only after having executes a shringwrap license agreement, > thereby making them members of the "select group". But you haven't shown that the license agreement requires confidentiality, and if the licenses that were posted here were the only ones, there plainly is not such requirement. > > How is that not publishing? Under what definition > > of publishing is that source code unpublished? > > 1. To make public; to make known to mankind, or to people in general; to > divulge, as a private transaction; to promulgate or > proclaim, as a law or an edict. > > -- not published under that one... I disagree. The information has been divulged to any member of the public that makes his way to one of those computers since there is no requirement to keep them away. > 2. To make known by posting, or by reading in a church; as, to publish banns of > marriage. > > -- not published under that one... Same story. It's like posting the source on a church (or company) bulletin board (or computer) and then saying that you've only distributed it to a select group and that you haven't published it. You HAVE published it, as your definition implies. > 3. To send forth, as a book, newspaper, musical piece, or other printed work, > either for sale or for general distribution; to print, and issue from the press. > > -- not published under that one: not for sale (merely licensed for > use), not for general distribution (only for ditribution to a > select group), not printed. Yes for sale. You purchase non-exclusive rights under a license contract. For big bucks above and beyond the cost of hardware. Or if not for sale, for some other terms that make no difference to the issue of publishing which does not require sale. > > You haven't said that there is any NDA involved, even after I hinted > > (above) for you to do so. > > There is a license. Any rights not granted to the licensee by > the licensor are reserved to the licensor. But there is no exclusive right to exclude the public from viewing your distributed work UNLESS you take reasonable steps to prevent the public from viewing it. > Letters are published. That's no argument. The letters in my example are unpublished. > > So the distribution (not publication) of trade-secret-containing > > software under a copyright license and NDA is quite reasonable. > > And that's what they did. I'm quite sure that I've made it abundantly clear that I wasn't discussing an NDA case and you've provided no clues that there was an NDA ("this is XXX proprietary information" is not an NDA). You're now changing the story and I've tired of hitting your uncharacteristic softballs. I suspect that you're playing mind games and I'm finished with this thread. The last word is yours. > In fact, it's probably a technical license violation for what was > published in this forum, with regard to the status of the works, > based on their attached license provisions. You'll notice that I > personally have not posted the direct information. That was my first thought upon seeing them, but one could make a good case that they had all four of the fair use factors (if one HAD to :). To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?rgk7rgxrr3.7rg>