On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 2:46 PM Carmel NY <carmel...@outlook.com> wrote:
> 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. > My complaint is that the site looked dodgy and I was pointing out why I thought so. Apologies if I was incorrect. -- > Carmel > > _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
