--- Anthony Patarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Does a end user need a patent license? > > Yes, which Fluendo has already acquired for you, and > only you.
Why would it be for only me if they are providing the source code under a MIT/X11 license. Obviously they have the permission needed to be able to distribute source so I would think anyone using that source would automagically be covered. I do not sign, click, or agree to anything when I get the source code from fluendo so why would someone I pass it on to not be covered the same as me. But I am just being argumentative. You are likely correct. It just seems to me that fluendo would not be able to provide the source as a public download IF some type of patent agreement went with it. > No. The patent license is not sublicensable in such > a way. The license, > as far as "normal" users are concerned, extends only > to them. Basically, > if you got the code from Fluendo or an authorized > distributor, you have > a patent license. If you didn't get it from an > authorized source, you do > not. Once again, the source is provided by public download so what would be a "normal" user and what would be a "non-normal" user? Okay, so how about a packagea user has to install and that package is a script that fetches the source code for the user, compiles it, and then installs it. Would that make a user a "normal" user? :) I honestly have no idea and you quite likely are correct I am just wondering 'what if' stuff. Thanks for the discussion! ____________________________________________________________________________________ Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://voice.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ gNewSense-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
