Re: IBM's open patent licensing policy

2004-01-15 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: [...] There is also a current conflict in open source licensing circles about how IBM and other companies use their patents for defensive purposes, with important implications for open source software. [See thread termination with unrelated trigger considered

bare license

2004-01-15 Thread dlw
I think I understand why the Free Software Foundation insists that a license is not a contract. Their belief is grounded upon a mistaken interpretation of the case law on licensing patents, highlighted in a 1938 decision by the Supreme Court in General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric

Re: bare license

2004-01-15 Thread Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
I do not think the reason why FSF favors the argument you mentioned -- that an open source license is a license, not a contract -- is a secret. A copyright license typically sets forth the rights granted by the licensor. The issue that occasionally arises is whether a copyright license like the

Re: Open Source Definition : can it be made explicit about non-copyright issues?

2004-01-15 Thread Russell McOrmond
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Russell McOrmond wrote: [...] Note: There are all these Halloween documents discussing the OSI battle-of-words with Microsoft, but I wonder why there is no similar discussion with IBM? Well, see