On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:39:56AM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote:
We're currently trying to sort out the non-free status of scsh within
Debian. Most of the issues are unambiguous, however, I'd like to see
some more opinions on the following two clauses contained in a couple of
source files.
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:55:23AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:39:56AM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote:
We're currently trying to sort out the non-free status of scsh within
Debian. Most of the issues are unambiguous, however, I'd like to see
some more opinions on
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to return
;;;to the T Project at Yale any improvements or extensions that they
make,
;;;so that these may be included in future releases; and (b) to inform
;;;the T Project
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:39:56AM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote:
We're currently trying to sort out the non-free status of scsh within
Debian. Most of the issues are unambiguous, however, I'd like to see
some more opinions on the following two clauses
Scripsit Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a)
;;; to return to the T Project at Yale any improvements or
;;; extensions that they make, so that these may be included in
This clause is moot, because The T Project at Yale has
Scripsit Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This clause is moot, because The T Project at Yale has not existed
for the last fifteen years.
I grabbed the source and looked at it. As Daniel wrote, there are
three files with this clause in them.
The one that references the T Project implements
On Nov 17, 2003, at 11:16, John Goerzen wrote:
This is only useful if you do not have a valid defense for the problem
already. In other words, it is only useful as a strong-arm tactic to
let
your own company effectively ignore patents of others. After all, if
the
lawsuit filed against you
On Nov 17, 2003, at 13:35, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 10:15:40AM -0800, Ken Arromdee wrote:
I'm a software developer. So the services of one may, under some
circumstances, cost me nothing at all (except my spare time). I
don't think
patent lawyers can get cheaper than
On 2003-11-18 19:07:18 + Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
aren't removed, Barak Pearlmutter cannot guarantee that he will not
give your phone number to his ex-wife. That should get results.
What, no automatic weapons?
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 03:48:12PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgNo=24
Thanks. I think the new S5 looks like this:
5. Reciprocity. If You institute patent litigation against any
entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a
10 matches
Mail list logo
