Iain K.Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David B. Held Sent: 26 November
2002 21:26
[snip]
Perhaps a special clause that the software does not infringe on any
known patents or copyrights, but comes with no other warranties? I
have no idea what the
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Iain K.Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David B. Held Sent:
26 November 2002 21:26
[snip]
Perhaps a special clause that the software does not infringe on any
known patents or copyrights, but comes with no
Terje Slettebø [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My meeting with a technology lawyer at Harvard last week led me to
believe that boost authors are already opened up to having to defend
against a patent suit. We are responsible for our own actions. No
matter
David Abrahams wrote:
[...]
I would be extremely surprised if anyone could make any worthwhile
legal claims against any user of a major Boost library because of
Boost itself.
Whether or not it's worthwhile really depends on the goals of those
bringin suit.
You're making progress, Dave.
it is, unfortunately, in a trial lawyer's best interest to have LOTS of
lawsuits over things. It's how s/he gets paid.
I can't see any of them saying Well, here's a way to put us all out of
business, just put this quote on all your documents.
At Saturday 2002/11/30 08:43, you wrote:
Iain
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Terje Slettebø [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My meeting with a technology lawyer at Harvard last week led me to
believe that boost authors are already opened up to having to defend
against a patent suit. We are
Terje Slettebø [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It is my understanding that warranting something that turns out to be
false offers the author less protection than warranting nothing at
all.
Right. So saying anything about no infringement on known patents,
I think the problem is that the entire clause can be viewed as
disclaiming
warranties against patent infringement/copyright violation/etc. The
question is whether it is possible to protect both library authors and
potential users. I don't see where else the buck can get passed.
Perhaps
Sean Parent wrote:
[...]
Dealing with copyright and patent issues in IP is all about risk management
for a corporation and limiting their exposure. The deeper the corporate
pockets the more conservative a stance the organization will tend to take.
Right.
What Adobe looks for is that:
David Abrahams wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sean Parent wrote:
[...]
Dealing with copyright and patent issues in IP is all about risk management
for a corporation and limiting their exposure. The deeper the corporate
pockets the more conservative a stance the
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sean Parent wrote:
[...]
Dealing with copyright and patent issues in IP is all about risk management
for a corporation and limiting their exposure. The deeper the
Paul A. Bristow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Does the as is really add anything that the sentence doesn't already
state?
This software is provided without express or implied warranty,
and with no claim as to its suitability for any purpose.
David Abrahams wrote:
[...]
What makes the IBM license more worthy of consideration than, say,
the BSD license?
Well, a sort of comparison/commentary w.r.t. quite a few most common
OSS licenses that I have isn't public -- I can't tell you; you will
have to ask your lawyer, I guess.
regards,
13 matches
Mail list logo
