Chris Gray wrote:
You'll also see that Going To The Media (tm) was proposed and
rejected as a first approach: softly softly did it.
I'll give them a call this morning, cordially mention some of the points
made, and see what the reaction is.
-t
--
license-discuss archive is at
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
what is the policy of opensource about patents ? and such license in
opensource license ? what is the way ?
I think it is important to integrate patents issues in such license. In
fact, the main risk for a patent holder is not about licensing business but
to not exhaust its patent rights in a
From: Matthew C. Weigel
The Open Source Initiative owns the servicemark OSI Approved Open
Source Software, and that is all.
Not quite! The certification mark is OSI Certified and the goods are
open source software. Thus the usage is:
OSI Certified Open Source Software
/Larry Rosen
This is not legal advice. No client-attorney relationship is established.
Speaking solely for myself. etc etc
- Original Message -
From: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Kolb, Doug [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Stamnes, Michelle [EMAIL
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
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
There seem to be a number of comments on the BSD+ Patent license we have
proposed that claim that the license is not open because it only licenses
a specific product; i.e., Linux.
First, this is not true. The patent license that is extended is for ANY OS
that is licensed under the GPL. It
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Stamnes, Michelle wrote:
Finally, under the proposed license, you can use the software in
Solaris or any other proprietary OS or in any other piece of software
(in addition to the GPL based OS's). You just don't have a patent
license; so you are no worse off than with
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
