review of DK and IIM patent licenses

arry Rosen) and a more senior attorney at Microsoft. So, it may not be entirely hopeless that Sender ID be entirely usable by open source. Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan ApacheCon! 13-17 November (3 SpamAssassin http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/ http://www.apachecon.com/ sessions & more)

Re: debian-legal review of licenses

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> What I was saying that if advance approval was the practice, > Advance approval will never happen in any form that I think you'd find > useful. If we "advance approved" something it would mean that we cound > not act if we later discovered a non-fre

Re: debian-legal review of licenses

non-free. Most want to be OSI approved, most want to be distributed in Debian, etc. That is why many companies work with OSI before releasing their licenses, but since the OSI criteria is slightly different and, more significantly, interpreted differently, I think everyone would benefit from some s

debian-legal review of licenses

As an observer of both the Debian and Apache licensing discussions surrounding the development of the Apache 2.0 license, I wanted to make a suggestion regarding the Debian legal review of licenses. It seems like groups like the ASF want to work with Debian when revising licenses. However, while

Habeas Email Filter License

e possibility of such damage. 5) Redistributions of source code must retain this entire license. --- end -- Daniel Quinlan anti-spam (SpamAssassin), Linux, and open http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/ source consulting (looking for new work)