> The following is arguably legal advice, but all of this information is
> available on the UPSTO web site. And if you can't believe the
> United States
> government, who can you believe??? OPENSOURCE may not be lost as a TM to
> the opensource community. On the federal register the term OPENSO
Hey Dan,
I'm actually interested in OSI certification, and the IBM
License has been OSI certified. So are you indicating that
if 2(b) were removed, that the IBM License would have a
better chance at GPL compatibility?
Carter
Carter Bullard
QoSient, LLC
300 E. 56th Street, Suite 18K
New York, Ne
IANAL and all that...
"Alexander Eichler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Hi all,
>
>Following the IPL discussion started by intraDAT we have received quite
>some requests for information concerning legal problems with GPL in
>Germany.
>
>Under German law there are a couple of problems with Open So
FSF's opinion, stated at http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html is:
"IBM Public License, Version 1.0
This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL.
The IBM Public License is incompatible with the GPL because it has various
specific requirements that are not in t
Ravicher, Daniel B. wrote:
> Non-lawyers want clear cut answers and believe they exist. Lawyers know
> clear cut answers don't exist; there are always arguments on both sides.
The first thing you learn in a lawin' family is that
there ain't any definite answers to anything.
Red Hat has announced that Michael Tiemann has joined the OSI board:
http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=RHAT&script=410&layout=-6&item_id=147351
I'm glad to hear it.
Ian
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
> It might be helpful when posting licenses to state what the goal is in using
> this type of license rather than a license already approved (or already
> submitted under a different name). If this license is identical to the IBM
> Public License except for dropping
Gentle people,
Assuming that the IBM license is cool (and the CPL)
would there be any problem to removing the patent license
clause 2(b) and references to it in the General Section and
getting OSI certification?
This would remove only the patent license, not any license
to do the Open Thing, and
Matt,
I think the point was to say that some posts were not making a distinction
between saying "that license is not legally enforceable in any court in the
U.S." and "some of the terms of that license are not consistent with open
source principles;" the latter is fine, the former should be avoid
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
>It might be helpful when posting licenses to state what the goal is in using
>this type of license rather than a license already approved (or already
>submitted under a different name). If this license is identical to the IBM
>Public License ex
Perhaps this discussion group will be best served by everyone contributing
their reasoned and educated thoughts. Creating negative incentives to
participate spells doom for the discussion and thwarts the benefit we could
all receive from an open marketplace of ideas where we all feel comfortable
John, you asked:
> > For example, it was
> > because of mistakes made early in the game that the open source
> > community lost all opportunity to obtain a trademark on "open
> > source."
>
> Hmm, interesting. I thought it was because of the descriptive
> nature of the proposed mark, which w
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> For example, it was
> because of mistakes made early in the game that the open source
> community lost all opportunity to obtain a trademark on "open
> source."
Hmm, interesting. I thought it was because of the descriptive
nature of the proposed mark, which would
Hi all,
Following the IPL discussion started by intraDAT we have received quite
some requests for information concerning legal problems with GPL in
Germany.
Under German law there are a couple of problems with Open Source Licensing,
e.g. it is impossible under German law to have no liability for
I appreciate and sign on to Rod Dixon's answer. Well phrased! Thanks.
/Larry Rosen
Rod wrote:
> Matt,
>
> I think the point was to say that some posts were not making a distinction
> between saying "that license is not legally enforceable in any
> court in the
> U.S." and "some of the terms of
It might be helpful when posting licenses to state what the goal is in using
this type of license rather than a license already approved (or already
submitted under a different name). If this license is identical to the IBM
Public License except for dropping a direct reference to "IBM," then I am
16 matches
Mail list logo
