On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:59:09 -0800, Russell Haley stated: >On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 3:41 AM Carmel NY <carmel...@outlook.com> >wrote: > >> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 18:51:41 -0700, Adam Weinberger stated: >> >On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 6:38 PM Kevin P. Neal <k...@neutralgood.org> >> >wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 01:01:52AM -0600, Greg Rivers wrote: >> >> > As of last August, Microsoft have relaxed the patent >> >> > restrictions on exFAT[1]. >> >> > >> >> > Can the Makefile LICENSE_PERMS_MSPAT restrictions be removed >> >> > from sysutils/fusefs-exfat? Might exFAT make it into the >> >> > FreeBSD base system (like msdosfs) one day? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > [1] >> >> > < >> https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/opensource/2019/08/28/exfat-linux-kernel/ >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> I'm not sure that counts as a license. IANAL, but I'd like to see >> >> an explicit granting of a license to anyone at no cost, and the >> >> license needs to be transferable. >> >> >> >> The way Berkeley eliminated the advertising clause was good. >> >> Simply saying "Microsoft is supporting the addition of" doesn't >> >> really say anything. It's a statement of corporate direction and >> >> nothing else. >> > >> >Expanding on what Kevin said, >> > >> https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/mtl/exfat-licensing.aspx >> >> >suggests that (a) exFAT is still patented and restricted as before, >> >and (b) GPLv2 licensing was granted only for the Linux kernel module >> >that they submitted. >> > >> >The BSD License grants the ability to use BSD-licensed code in >> >commercial products, so I'm not sure that Microsoft would want to >> >relax their licensing for us. As Kevin said, IANAL. >> > >> ># Adam >> >> I imagine that someone could actually inquire. It would cost nothing >> and end this FUD that is surrounding this subject. >> >> http://aka.ms/celaiplicensing >> >On my phone the site displays a "Contoso, Ltd." title (That's >Microsoft's pretend company for all it's examples). The IP Address >resolves to a seemingly non-Microsoft server: >waws-prod-bay-059.cloudapp.net [23.99.91.55]. To boot, there is no >corporate branding or other links back to the Microsoft site. Forgive >me, but it seems like a terrible idea to submit information to that >site.
That link leads to: https://celaiplicensing.microsoftcrmportals.com/IPlicensing/ <microsoftcrmportals.com> is owned by Microsoft. I am not sure what your specific complaint is. -- Carmel
pgp6YvByD7Jpg.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
