Re: KDE violates IBM patent

the filing date of this patent. IAAL, but TINLA. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: Which license to use for MFC based software?

for dinner AFTER I enter into a contract to which I am bound. And Microsoft clearly considers their EULAs to be contracts (license agreement). Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com

Re: Which license to use for MFC based software?

any license that has GPL-like terms. And I don't know if the MFC license permits redistribution under BSD-like terms, since I don't think you get sublicensing rights or even source distribution rights. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright

Re: Licenses and subterfuge

Alex Rousskov wrote: On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: Our software can be linked with any library supporting Foo API. Users report success with FooLib on Linux. Other Foo API libraries may be available in your environment. Known compatibility problems with Foo

Re: Licenses and subterfuge

-licensed library available to perform the functions you need. In such a case you may be forced to have a similar library developed to avoid having to link to such GPL-licensed software. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained

Re: Licenses and subterfuge

Alex Rousskov wrote: On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: Absolutely right. Still, it could be problematic if there is only a GPL-licensed library available to perform the functions you need. In such a case you may be forced to have a similar library developed to avoid having

Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration

Eben Moglen wrote: On Tuesday, 24 February 2004, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: I'm not even sure the license still exists if you take out the Contribution I made (embodying my patented method) and put it in some other work. In that case there would no mystery about the FSF position

Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration

derivative works. Nor would it be safe to do so, since derivative work is a concept of copyright law, not patent law. I'm not even sure the license still exists if you take out the Contribution I made (embodying my patented method) and put it in some other work. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet

Re: The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL

obligations, then as a consequence YOU may not distribute the Program at all. So the rest of the world can keep on distributing. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss

Re: The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL

that software? Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: International treatment of the public domain

to that effect. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1

I can then take your BSD'ed work and extract the public domain parts. It seems logical I should be able to do that, but there have been lots of lawsuits about restored versions of PD works and whether the result is copyright-protected. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney

Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration

by a lawyer. :-) Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1

a longer term. http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

be distributed under other licenses than the GPL. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: Clarification of GPL

seen with the GFDL. The FSF believes this license is in accordance with its principles, but many others disagree. We will have to wait and see what happens with GPL version 3 (which is what the FSF will relicense its code to once this license is written). Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch

Re: Clarification of GPL

is not available for producers of databases who live outside the EC member states (art. 11(2)). Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi

Re: Clarification of GPL

. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: Clarification of GPL

code? (Questioning if this can be legally binding.) That's certainly legally binding. Note that the GPL already requires people to keep notices in the source intact (see section 1, which must be followed whenever someone distributes original or modified source code). Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet

Re: Viral licenses (was: wxWindows library...)

impossible to track down all copyright holders to get clarification or an exception for your usage. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http

Re: Viral licenses

_any_ scenario in which you are forced by a court to release your code under GPL, unless you promised in advance you would, or you tried some nasty trick to circumvent the GPL. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained

Re: wxWindows library license infected by GPL?

result in your code having to be licensed under GPL. You may have to stop distributing your application until you have replaced the offending code though, but that's always a risk when using third party code. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents

Re: Which License should I pick?

-- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: non-aggression pacts for patents and the GPL

consequences, and are not an appropriate vehicle for protecting the freedom of free software against the serious threat posed by software patent litigation. We would urge that the first sentence of section 5 be removed. http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgId=1127301 Arnoud -- Arnoud

Re: mysql

the right architectural decisions. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: mysql

Mitchell Baker wrote: Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: No, it's the FUD that the GPL is 'viral' and therefore must be avoided in business environments. It is very well possible to combine GPL-licensed software with proprietary applications. You just have to make the right architectural decisions

Re: I give up...

will not attract many developers willing to modify your software. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: I give up...

Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: Silly question: are usage restrictions covered by the OSD?

is then officially approved and cannot be closed. In other words, licenses like the Affero Public License, the Apple Public License 2.0 or the Open Software License 1.1 would no longer qualify as OSI approved. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents

Re: Silly question: are usage restrictions covered by the OSD?

. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: Silly question: are usage restrictions covered by the OSD?

Rick Moen wrote: Quoting Arnoud Engelfriet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Well, if the usage is normally reserved to the copyright holder, an open source license could grant that right to all users. I don't think that has anything to do with discrimination. Isn't the right to use software implied

Silly question: are usage restrictions covered by the OSD?

the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). Is this the same as OSD #6 or do they indeed require something broader here? Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss

Re: Termination for Patent Action

Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: Arnoud Engelfriet responded: Actually it goes much further. If you sue any author of any AFL- licensed software for patent infringement, you lose all rights to *all* AFL-licensed software, as well as all rights to all other software with that same poison pill