On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 2:46 PM Carmel NY wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:59:09 -0800, Russell Haley stated:
> >On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 3:41 AM Carmel NY
> >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
> >> >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/
>
> 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"
