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,
Stamnes, Michelle writes:
It is not logical to say that a license that grants MORE rights than the BSD
is not open.
Agreed. And yet, we don't have logic to work from, we have the Open
Source Definition.
--
-russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free
On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
Intel can't solve those problems but it should be commended for doing
what it can (even if it isn't doing everything that we think
possible).
Yes. Although my one response to this was in the negative, I *do*
think it's great that Intel is trying.
[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).
11 matches
Mail list logo
