Russell McOrmond wrote:
[...]
deal with some of the worst cases we are currently dealing with.
Care to provide some SPECIFIC example(s) involving IBM? You've
mentioned before IETF and OASIS. Well, IETF with its RAND patent
licensing policy aside for a moment (http://tinyurl.com/yshn3
and see
FROM:MRS,JOY APOHA
E-MAIL:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PHONE:27-72-450-7008.
DEAR
MY NAME IS MRS, JOY APOHA THE WIFE OF KENNEDY APOHA WHO WAS RECENTLY MURDERED IN THE
LAND DISPUTE IN ZIMBABWE.
YOU MIGHT BE SURPRISE WHERE I GOT YOUR CONTACT ADDRESS.I GOT YOUR ADDRESS FROM THE
AFRICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
(Changing subject as we are no longer talking about licensing issues)
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Russell McOrmond wrote:
[...]
deal with some of the worst cases we are currently dealing with.
Care to provide some SPECIFIC example(s) involving IBM?
I suspect this
If any of the rules and formalities of contracts you mention
are required to be enforced under state law, that involves an element
of state action. The GPL purports to overcome privity questions about
third party distribution ad infinitum. This appears to create a new
right against the world that
Russell McOrmond wrote:
[...]
IBM has been lobbying for unlimited patentability, pushing
the rhetoric of technology neutrality that is the most
common political phrase used against Open Source software.
The problem is, software is not a 'technology' any more than
laws, acts of parliament
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Russell McOrmond wrote:
[...]
IBM has been lobbying for unlimited patentability, pushing
the rhetoric of technology neutrality that is the most
common political phrase used against Open Source software.
The problem is, software is not
Russell McOrmond scripsit:
My question still remains: Why is IBM in a very public way advertising
the benefits of Open Source and Linux, while at the same time lobbying
against Open Source in less visible (and less understood) public policy
circles?
That's not a question, it's an
Ken Brown wrote:
I'd like to know this too. This intrigues me. Is IBM's proposition
that they can make money with both IP and open source incorrect?
I'm meeting some IBM people at LinuxWorld next week. I'll ask them. :)
- Robin
--
license-discuss archive is at
(Will try to make this quick -- I don't want to dominate this thread, and
won't post any more today in the hopes that others have interest as well)
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Ken Brown wrote:
I'd like to know this too. This intrigues me. Is IBM's proposition
that they can make money with both IP
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Ken Brown wrote:
I'd like to know this too. This intrigues me. Is IBM's proposition
that they can make money with both IP and open source incorrect?
Of course they can.
In my opinion, I do not believe that they IBM's model has a long-term
future. IP inextricably
Yes, the issues are exactly as you quite effectively summarize. In my post,
I was not expressing my opinion on the merits of the contract/license
debate; rather, I was noting the primary issues usually involved in that
debate.
Rod
- Original Message -
From: daniel wallace [EMAIL
11 matches
Mail list logo
