Hi Bruce,
I'm glad you're starting to like the AFL. Please let us know if/when
you actually use it.
The discussion of the warranty of non-infringement of copyright can
start with this article:
www.rosenlaw.com/GL14.pdf
I wrote this for my column in Linux Journal a few months ago. The
respo
I like the revised AFL. It's getting to the point where I may even use it.
I have just one concern, and that is with the warranty of copyright which
appears in both of these licenses. I think there must be a better way to
achieve that - it smells like a cludge to me - but since I'm not a lawyer
New versions of the Open Software License (OSL) and the Academic Free
License (AFL) are now available for your review. They are posted at:
www.rosenlaw.com/osl1.1.html
www.rosenlaw.com/afl1.2.html
Both licenses now contain an Attribution Rights provision.
Other minor changes have been ma
At 21:09 22/10/2002 -0400, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
I cannot resist calling out the irony and twists-of-fate of an OSI trademark
certification of a wxWindows open source software product. If OSI has the
temerity to grant that one, yall should send out a press release.
Seriously, let's be car
Julian Smart r sez:
> Hi,
>
> Do you think you could clarify? I don't understand what you're
> referring to here... perhaps the fact that the name has
> 'Windows' in it? It's been 10 years and MS hasn't sued yet,
> and the Lindows case didn't go well for them. I certainly
> didn't intend to abuse t
There is a strong argument that wxWindows refers only to the windowing
functionality that is a generic use. It's a strong argument, but that is all
it is. You are correct that MS is not getting a favorable response from the
court so far in the Lindows matter, but the USPTO also denied registration
6 matches
Mail list logo
