Subject: Re: Approval request for BXAPL
From: "Abe Kornelis" <>
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 20:54:24 +0200

And yet another that should have been cc-ed to the list.
Shame on me, isn't it? Once again I apologize.
Abe F. Kornelis.

From: Forrest J. Cavalier III <>

> > > The definition of "User" is too broad.  It allows any
> > > Distributor to force someone to be a "User" simply by
> > > sending them a copy.
> > 
> > But does it arm any part of the license ? Or just a personal feeling ?
> 8.5 seems to have an effect for "Users"
--> Well, that's quite a long shot isn't it?
>  15 may also.
--> That's an even longer shot.
> 16 also, but 16 is hard to follow.
--> Par.16 relates to patent infringement litigation. To do that
      a copy of the Software would be required to prove that
      patent infringement exists. So the Patent Holder would
      likely be a User. What obligations does par.16 impose?
      That the Patent Holder pay for use of the Software.
      So if Patent Holder does not use the Software, no
      obligations are imposed. If, otoh, Patent Holder does
      use the Software, then the retribution obligation
      becomes a negotiable object.

> Realistically, I think no court will find you had obligations
> if someone sent you a source without request.  But what if someone
> obtains the source for determination if it infringes a patent?
--> Agreed. See above.

> Does the license allow them to inspect the software without 
> obligating them to #16?  How?
--> Does inspection / scrutiny qualify legally as "use"?
       I doubt it heavily. I certainly wouldn't expect it to.
       I think however, that you are right in finding that 
       the definition of User needs a slight narrowing.
       In fact, I chose the verb "receive" because I didn't
       know whether "own" or "have" or "possess"
       would be adequate. Having a copy somewhere
       on a computer or a storage medium should 
       make the owner a User; discarding all your
       copy should return any User to non-User
       status. Right?

Anybody happen to know how to formulate
this correctly? All suggestions are welcome.

Thanks in advance and kind regards, Abe F. Kornelis.

license-discuss archive is at