Scripsit Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Henning Makholm:
| 3.2. Availability of Source Code.
| Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be
| made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License
| either on the same media as an Executable version or
Gürkan Sengün [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is the AROS license DFSG ok?
http://www.aros.org/license.html
Michael Poole wrote:
Some people believe that this kind of termination clause violates the
DFSG.
Clause 8.2a terminates rights to the Contributor Version if you allege in a
lawsuit that the
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, 8.2b terminates rights when you sue a Participant alleging that
*anything* infringes any patent.
As far as I know, *nobody* thinks that is OK. For instance, it could be over
Participant's use of your patent for extracting aluminum from
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, 8.2b terminates rights when you sue a Participant alleging that
*anything* infringes any patent.
As far as I know, *nobody* thinks that is OK. For instance, it could be
over
Participant's use
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, 8.2b terminates rights when you sue a Participant alleging that
*anything* infringes any patent.
As far as I know, *nobody* thinks that is OK. For instance, it could be
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 10:19:33AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
As far as I know, *nobody* thinks that is OK. For instance, it could be
over
Participant's use of your patent for extracting aluminum from ore.
It terminates a right we don't require in the first place. If the patent
is
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 10:19:33AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
As far as I know, *nobody* thinks that is OK. For instance, it could be
over
Participant's use of your patent for extracting aluminum from ore.
It terminates a right we don't require
On Sat, 2005-01-08 at 12:31 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It terminates a right we don't require in the first place. If the patent
is actively enforced, we potentially have problems - if it isn't, why is
it more of a problem than a license
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 02:08:29PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
That's an ugly, fuzzy, ill-focused gray area, though. We do require the
rights
restricted by patents; but in the case where we don't have the right, but
the
restriction isn't being enforced, we grunt and act as
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 02:22:33PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
have the right to do something without a license (although we might;
it may not be patented), just as we might not have the right to copy a
Or there might be prior art, which means that the patent is without merit.
Typically,
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The reality is that we do *not* require authors to extend us a license to
patents as part of their software license in order to consider it free. We
merely opt not to distribute software that's covered by patents that are
actively being enforced. The
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 02:08:29PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
There is a somewhat recursive, but self-consistent, way to deal with
this. We don't require explicit patent licenses when it appears the
patents aren't being enforced. Presence of these clauses is excellent
evidence that
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 05:50:12PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The reality is that we do *not* require authors to extend us a license to
patents as part of their software license in order to consider it free. We
merely opt not to distribute
* Henning Makholm:
| 3.2. Availability of Source Code.
| Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be
| made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License
| either on the same media as an Executable version or via an accepted
| Electronic Distribution
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 01:47:36PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
Again, this clause is part of the MPL, which is presently considered
DFSG-free.
No, the MPL is not clearly free[1]. See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html
The situation, roughly, is that while the MPL
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 01:47:36PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
Again, this clause is part of the MPL, which is presently considered
DFSG-free.
No, the MPL is not clearly free[1]. See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html
The
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 08:19:35PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 01:47:36PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
Again, this clause is part of the MPL, which is presently considered
DFSG-free.
No, the MPL is not clearly free[1].
Gürkan Sengün [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is the AROS license DFSG ok?
http://www.aros.org/license.html
Likely problems:
8.2. If You initiate litigation by asserting a patent
infringement claim (excluding declatory judgment actions)
against Initial Developer or a Contributor
* Michael Poole:
[something close to the anti-patent clause from the MPL]
Some people believe that this kind of termination clause violates the
DFSG.
But this is not specific to the AROS License, it's inherited from the
MPL (although I haven't compared the licenses word-for-word).
Florian Weimer writes:
* Michael Poole:
[something close to the anti-patent clause from the MPL]
Some people believe that this kind of termination clause violates the
DFSG.
But this is not specific to the AROS License, it's inherited from the
MPL (although I haven't compared the
Michael Poole wrote:
Gürkan Sengün [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is the AROS license DFSG ok?
http://www.aros.org/license.html
Likely problems:
8.2. If You initiate litigation by asserting a patent
infringement claim (excluding declatory judgment actions)
against Initial
Scripsit Gürkan Sengün [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is the AROS license DFSG ok?
http://www.aros.org/license.html
In addition to the patent termination, I don't thinkt this is a free
condition:
| 3.2. Availability of Source Code.
| Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be
|
Scripsit Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(b) any software, hardware, or device, other than such
Participant's Contributor Version, directly or indirectly
infringes any patent, then any rights granted to You by such
Participant under Sections 2.1(b) and 2.2(b) are revoked
23 matches
Mail list logo
