[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 06:02:55PM -0800, Johann George wrote: >> We have heard the issues that have been raised regarding the >> PathScale license. PathScale's intent is solely to protect its >> hardware IP and not to limit use of the software in any way. >> >> PathScale's use of this language is not original. SGI has used, and >> perhaps originated, the additional language. It currently appears in >> several files in the Linux kernel. As an example, see >> fs/xfs/linux-2.6/kmem.c > > XFS has been switched to a normal short GPL boilerplate > exactly because this wording is not okay. >
The best statement I could google explicitly states that patented code *can* be submitted *if* it has a license. The plain reading of pathscale's license grants an unencumbered license *to the code*. It merely refrains from waving any related hardware rights. As I read it, the code *may* be used with alternative hardware. If the alternative hardware violates the patent, the driver code is irrelevant. The code is not being restricted to work only with the patented hardware, correct? _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
