On Sunday 04 November 2001 09:47 pm, Karsten M. Self wrote:
The patent license creates an explicit class of works under which the
software is not freely utilizeable.
No it doesn't. The patent *system* creates this class of works.
Specious. You could make the same argument of any
Stamnes, Michelle wrote:
Yes, you can use this software with FreeBSD. FreeBSD is subject to the BSD
license, so you have no patent license for the original code.
I'm sorry, but this seems to be a contradiction in terms. If there is
an Intel patent on the art of which this software is an
John Cowan writes:
Stamnes, Michelle wrote:
Yes, you can use this software with FreeBSD. FreeBSD is subject to the BSD
license, so you have no patent license for the original code.
I'm sorry, but this seems to be a contradiction in terms. If there is
an Intel patent on the art
Russell Nelson wrote:
s/BSD/GPL/, burn a CD, and send it to me. You are now using a
GPL-licensed OS. But that's besides the point, really. The point is
whether a license which is open source can become not so if a patent
license is included with it.
Framed that way, certainly. But can
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established.
Speaking only for myself. etc. etc.
- Original Message -
From: Stamnes, Michelle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 8:31 PM
Subject: Response to comments on Intel's proposed
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established.
Speaking only for myself. etc etc.
From: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Intel's proposed BSD + Patent License
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:00:56 -0500 (EST)
John Cowan writes:
Stamnes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
but has the scenario you described actually happened?
(i.e. decades old code getting patented out from under someone)
Wasn't the XOR cursor patented in that manner?
--
-russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software |
Forrest J. Cavalier III writes:
Any software license which restricts use to only publicly available
GPL'ed OSs, (the way their patent license does), would obviously fail
to meet the OSD.
But it doesn't restrict use to only publicly available GPL'ed OSs.
Certain software which falls under
John Cowan writes:
Russell Nelson wrote:
s/BSD/GPL/, burn a CD, and send it to me. You are now using a
GPL-licensed OS. But that's besides the point, really. The point is
whether a license which is open source can become not so if a patent
license is included with it.
Framed
Russ Nelson wrote:
Forrest Tell me why you have to put the OSI's good name on this.
The only way we can reject a license is to point to the OSD term which
it violates.
The license under discussion violates FSF Freedom 0,
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
-Original Message-
From: Russell Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 9:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Intel's proposed BSD + Patent License
Yes, you can use this software with FreeBSD. FreeBSD is subject to the BSD
license, so you have no patent
Abe Kornelis writes:
Russell Nelson wrote:
[ Please review this license. If you do so promptly enough, we may
be able to include it in tomorrow's board meeting. -russ ]
--
This raises some questions. We recently had a lengthy discussion
on the speed with which licenses are
On Tue, 30 October 2001, David Johnson wrote:
On Tuesday 30 October 2001 06:24 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
=Patents must be novel (that is, it must be different from all
=previous inventions in some important way).
=
=Patents must be nonobvious (a surprising and significant
d'origine-
De : Karsten M. Self [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Envoye : mercredi 31 octobre 2001 09:45
A : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : Re: Intel's proposed BSD + Patent License
on Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 09:32:40PM -0800, David Johnson
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tuesday 30 October 2001 09:07
PROTECTED]; Simon, David
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: Intel's proposed BSD + Patent License
John Cowan writes:
Russell Nelson wrote:
[snip]
Essentially, we are all of us completely and totally screwed by the
patent system. If I invent something
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established.
Speaking only for myself. etc etc.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Intel's proposed BSD + Patent License
Date: 30 Oct 2001 18:24:32 -0800
On Tue, 30 October 2001, Russell Nelson wrote
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established.
Speaking for myself only. etc etc
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Intel's proposed BSD + Patent License
Date: 31 Oct 2001 06:22:39 -0800
On Tue, 30 October 2001, David Johnson wrote
On Wednesday 31 October 2001 06:22 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But if I code some software, register it with the copyright office,
put a LGPL license on it, put it on the web, and I DON'T get a
patent for it,
The key here is register it. I would also place a description of the
software
Russell Nelson wrote:
Abe Kornelis writes:
Russell Nelson wrote:
[ Please review this license. If you do so promptly enough, we may
be able to include it in tomorrow's board meeting. -russ ]
--
This raises some questions. We recently had a lengthy discussion
on the
Is there anyone have samples of license including patent issues ? I am
working on such problems for a consortium which will develop and distribute
free software. The limitation of the patent license for any use of the
software only on GPL licensed OS is very interesting, I think and can help
Intel hereby grants Recipient and Licensees a non-exclusive,
worldwide, royalty-free patent license under Licensed Patents to make,
use, sell, offer to sell, import and otherwise transfer the Software,
if any, in source code and object code form. This license shall
include changes to the
Russell Nelson wrote:
[ Please review this license. If you do so promptly enough, we may
be able to include it in tomorrow's board meeting. -russ ]
I have tried to turn around this response as fast as possible,
so please forgive any defects of detail.
Executive summary: this license is
John Cowan writes:
Russell Nelson wrote:
[ Please review this license. If you do so promptly enough, we may
be able to include it in tomorrow's board meeting. -russ ]
I have tried to turn around this response as fast as possible,
so please forgive any defects of detail.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 04:15:23PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
based on the copyright permissions granted. Note that the Intel
BSD+Patent License does not make copying dependent upon patent
noninfringement. The patent grant is a separate term.
Could it be a separate document altogether?
On Tue, 30 October 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
Essentially, we are all of us completely and totally screwed by the
patent system. If I invent something that you have put into your
(unpublished -- at least as far as the patent system is concerned)
code for decades, and patent it, I 0WN J00.
On Tuesday 30 October 2001 02:06 pm, M. Drew Streib wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 04:15:23PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
based on the copyright permissions granted. Note that the Intel
BSD+Patent License does not make copying dependent upon patent
noninfringement. The patent grant is a
On Tuesday 30 October 2001 08:40 am, Russell Nelson wrote:
Intel hereby grants Recipient and Licensees a non-exclusive,
worldwide, royalty-free patent license under Licensed Patents to make,
use, sell, offer to sell, import and otherwise transfer the Software,
if any, in source code and
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 6:25 PM
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Intel's proposed BSD + Patent License
On Tue, 30 October 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
Essentially, we are all of us completely and totally screwed
On Tuesday 30 October 2001 06:24 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
=Patents must be novel (that is, it must be different from all
=previous inventions in some important way).
=
=Patents must be nonobvious (a surprising and significant development)
=to somebody who understands the technical field
Russell Nelson scripsit:
Let me analogize: Let's say that I'm pointing a gun at you. Are you
at any more disk if I let you know it's pointed at you? What if I
tell you the conditions under which I will pull the trigger?
If you bind yourself by contract NEVER to pull the trigger, I feel
John Cowan writes:
Sure. But the patent license is restrictive, so you shouldn't certify.
No, *not* having the patent license is restrictive. It's really weird
that a license whose controversial terms grant people more freedoms
would be clearly approvable if those terms were taken out.
--
David Johnson writes:
Now wait one cotton pickin' minute here! You mean to tell me I can't use this
software on FreeBSD?
Sure you can. GPL your copy of it.
If the OSI certification mark only applies to licenses, then this one might,
just might, squeak by if you serve enough booze at
On Tuesday 30 October 2001 08:21 pm, Russell Nelson wrote:
David Johnson writes:
Now wait one cotton pickin' minute here! You mean to tell me I can't use
this software on FreeBSD?
Sure you can. GPL your copy of it.
??? GPL my copy of FreeBSD ???
Precisely how do I go about this?
David Johnson writes:
On Tuesday 30 October 2001 08:21 pm, Russell Nelson wrote:
David Johnson writes:
Now wait one cotton pickin' minute here! You mean to tell me I can't use
this software on FreeBSD?
Sure you can. GPL your copy of it.
??? GPL my copy of FreeBSD ???
I think approving this sets a dangerous precedent.
In order to approve this, the OSI has to take the view that
well, we approve documents of any length, of any content,
as long as the software license parts are OSD compliant. We
ignore everything else in the document.
Are you saying that if
On Tuesday 30 October 2001 09:07 pm, Russell Nelson wrote:
??? GPL my copy of FreeBSD ???
Precisely how do I go about this? Replace all copies of the BSD license
under /usr/src and recompile?
Why bother? Why not simply decide in your own head that, if you ever
give away a copy of
David Johnson writes:
Okay, we can play fun little metaphysical games with the BSD license, but it
ignores an important point: the BSD+Patent License restricts what operating
systems you may use it on.
No it doesn't, for several reasons:
1) You might live in a jurisdiction where
On Tuesday 30 October 2001 10:07 pm, Russell Nelson wrote:
The Patent License does not say that you cannot run the software if
your operating system is not GPL'ed. It says that you are granted a
license if your operating system is GPL'ed. That's *all*.
And that's enough to disqualify it.
38 matches
Mail list logo
