6 ms·

It is open source by virtue of the source being available. There is just no license that allows redistribution or derivative works.

bdcravens 8y ago
Or any license to say I can use it, period.
- msla 8y ago
  There's one interpretation which says that isn't required: https://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html https://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html > In the United States, once you own a copy of a program, you can back it up, compile it, run it, and even modify it as necessary, without permission from the copyright holder. See 17 USC 117. > For example, after purchasing a copy of Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 Workstation---which is a poorly tuned version of NT 4.0 Server, minus a few utilities---you can back it up, apply a small patch that fixes the tuning, and run the result. Whether the law is enforcable in court is another matter: > Ten years ago, the SPA convinced Louisiana to subvert the will of Congress by passing a law that declared shrinkwrap licenses enforceable. In Vault v. Quaid, 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988), this law was struck down. Federal copyright law preempts state law. > The SPA didn't give up. It keeps arguing in court that, gee, if all these software makers claim that you can't use the software without a license, then they can't all be wrong, can they? (Ignore the fact that they're willingly selling their software to the public.) > The SPA lost again in Step-Saver but then won in ProCD. I expect the Supreme Court to step in within the next few years to resolve the dispute in favor of Vault and Step-Saver.
  - oxguy3 8y ago
    Perhaps you can use it on your own machine, but you can't redistribute it and you can't publish any works that use the font. A font is next to worthless if you can't publish anything you typed with it.
  - jcranmer 8y ago
    That interpretation looks like legalistic wishful thinking rather than a proper analysis of law. For starters, it's relying on 20-30 year old cases as the most recent guidance. Vernor v. Autodesk (decided by the Ninth Circuit in 2010) held that it is possible for companies to license you software in lieu of selling it, which pretty much is the exact opposite of the contention here. And when you're a licensee, not an owner, well, §107 doesn't apply here at all.
vortico 8y ago
That's called "source available", not "open source". At least according to the OSI. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- vbezhenar 8y ago
  It's not even that. Old Windows sources are available via torrents. That does not attach any kind of open source license.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

bdcravens 8y ago

Or any license to say I can use it, period.

msla 8y ago
There's one interpretation which says that isn't required: https://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html https://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html > In the United States, once you own a copy of a program, you can back it up, compile it, run it, and even modify it as necessary, without permission from the copyright holder. See 17 USC 117. > For example, after purchasing a copy of Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 Workstation---which is a poorly tuned version of NT 4.0 Server, minus a few utilities---you can back it up, apply a small patch that fixes the tuning, and run the result. Whether the law is enforcable in court is another matter: > Ten years ago, the SPA convinced Louisiana to subvert the will of Congress by passing a law that declared shrinkwrap licenses enforceable. In Vault v. Quaid, 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988), this law was struck down. Federal copyright law preempts state law. > The SPA didn't give up. It keeps arguing in court that, gee, if all these software makers claim that you can't use the software without a license, then they can't all be wrong, can they? (Ignore the fact that they're willingly selling their software to the public.) > The SPA lost again in Step-Saver but then won in ProCD. I expect the Supreme Court to step in within the next few years to resolve the dispute in favor of Vault and Step-Saver.
- oxguy3 8y ago
  Perhaps you can use it on your own machine, but you can't redistribute it and you can't publish any works that use the font. A font is next to worthless if you can't publish anything you typed with it.
- jcranmer 8y ago
  That interpretation looks like legalistic wishful thinking rather than a proper analysis of law. For starters, it's relying on 20-30 year old cases as the most recent guidance. Vernor v. Autodesk (decided by the Ninth Circuit in 2010) held that it is possible for companies to license you software in lieu of selling it, which pretty much is the exact opposite of the contention here. And when you're a licensee, not an owner, well, §107 doesn't apply here at all.

vortico 8y ago

That's called "source available", not "open source". At least according to the OSI. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd

vbezhenar 8y ago
It's not even that. Old Windows sources are available via torrents. That does not attach any kind of open source license.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]