rjack wrote:
You have to admit it. Microsoft's lawyers are real morons.
Just think about it. They are probably making $250,000 a year. The
top tax bracket is 37.6 percent. Now you have to assume since they
are really stupid that they don't know about tax shelters and the
like. So that leaves the
You have to admit it. Microsoft's lawyers are real morons.
Just think about it. They are probably making $250,000 a
year. The top tax bracket is 37.6 percent. Now you have to
assume since they are really stupid that they don't know
about tax shelters and the like. So that leaves them paying
about
Kurt Häusler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 22:36:20 +1200, Jonathan Walker wrote:
>
>
>> If *you* own the copyrights, then *you* can choose what license you want
>> to release the software under.
>>
>> If your company owns the copyrights, then your company can choose what
>> l
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 22:36:20 +1200, Jonathan Walker wrote:
> If *you* own the copyrights, then *you* can choose what license you want
> to release the software under.
>
> If your company owns the copyrights, then your company can choose what
> license it wants to release the software under.
>
>
Kurt Häusler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 12:24:38 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Kurt Häusler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> By leaving their name in the text of the gpl license file rather
>>> than say overwriting it with either my name or my employer's
>>> name. Which
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 12:24:38 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Kurt Häusler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> By leaving their name in the text of the gpl license file rather
>> than say overwriting it with either my name or my employer's
>> name. Which is standard practice right?
>
> Sigh. That makes
Kurt Häusler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 11:55:07 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Kurt Häusler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> Now I wrote most of the code, and placed the copyright under
>>> ownership of the FSF.
>>
>> How so?
>
> By leaving their name in the text of the
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 11:55:07 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Kurt Häusler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Now I wrote most of the code, and placed the copyright under
>> ownership of the FSF.
>
> How so?
By leaving their name in the text of the gpl license file rather than say
overwriting it with
Kurt Häusler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 10:30:13 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Sure. What about "or any later version" did you not understand?
>> However, that does not make the original copyright holder
>> responsible for redistribution under the GPL 3, so it is you, th
Kurt Häusler wrote:
> I am a bit worried myself as I used to work for a company writing open
> source linux drivers (but not in the kernel or any distros) implementing
> patented protocols and algorithms with permission, under the gpl2 (or any
> later version), just trying to do the right thing, cu
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 10:30:13 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Sure. What about "or any later version" did you not understand?
> However, that does not make the original copyright holder responsible
> for redistribution under the GPL 3, so it is you, the relicensor, that
> have to provide the patent
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:15:48 +1200, Jonathan Walker wrote:
> Any person who distributes GPL3 code cannot subsequently sue the recipient
> of that code - or anybody else - for any alleged patent violations because
> the GPL3 requires that or else that person is in violation of the license
> which
Kurt Häusler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:15:48 +1200, Jonathan Walker wrote:
>
>
>> Any person who distributes GPL3 code cannot subsequently sue the
>> recipient of that code - or anybody else - for any alleged patent
>> violations because the GPL3 requires that or else th
13 matches
Mail list logo
