* Paul Jakma:
> It's less clear to me though whether there is an issue on the copyright
> and GPLv2+ licence side. The concern that has been raised with me is
> that the Cisco grant is conditional and revocable with potential
> royalties applying, while the GPLv2+ seems to require
Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2017, Walter Landry wrote:
>> With that said, the usual approach that Debian follows is that if the
>> patent is not being actively enforced, Debian does not worry about
>> them. Otherwise, Debian would not be able to ship anything. Since
>> you
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017, Walter Landry wrote:
"For any claims of any Cisco patents that are necessary for
practicing
the Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol specification
, any party will have the right to use any such
patent claims under reasonable, non-discriminatory terms, with
Paul Jakma wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a question I have not been able to get a conclusion to,
> regarding the compatibility of the licence Cisco have given to their
> EIGRP patents, by way of their declaration under the IETF "IPR"
> process. That declaration being:
>
>
4 matches
Mail list logo