On 07-Feb-2008, David Gerard wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Glyn Wintle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 7 Feb 2008 10:40 > > RAND [terms for patent licenses] (such as h264 or MPEG2) are a way > to exclude FLOSS developers, because they require royalty payments > that developers cannot afford.
The argument of "cannot afford" is unlikely to win too many to our side. Fortunately, it's not the strongest argument against such terms. Worse than "cannot afford" is the fact that these terms usually require payment on a per-customer or per-installation or some such basis, which is infeasible to comply with for free software simply because there is (by design) no limitation on redistribution. Many such license terms are on such a basis that redistribution is explicitly prohibited, clearly excluding free software. -- \ "Conscience is a mother-in-law whose visit never ends." -- | `\ Henry L. Mencken | _o__) | Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
