Re: Taking a position on anti-patent licenses

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:55:17 -0500 Nathanael Nerode wrote: There is argument over those clauses which do not impact legitimate non-software patents, but which do impact uses of software patents against unrelated software. I think many of us consider these to contaminate other software, or

The Nutch Software License

Is this license DFSG-free? I ask you that because I sent a RFP for nutch... http://www.nutch.org/LICENSE.txt -- Luca Brivio Web:http://icebrook.altervista.org Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homo sum:

Re: The Nutch Software License

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:11:16 + Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Luca Brivio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --Signature_Sun__30_Jan_2005_21_49_09_+0100_Dy=EZMml=y897PzA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Is this license DFSG-free? I ask you

Re: Taking a position on anti-patent licenses

On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 02:55:17PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: I believe that most of us have come to the conclusion that self-protection clauses are free. These are of the form: If you make a legal claim stating that use (/distribution/etc.) of this software infringes a patent, then you