On 07/21/2007 04:47 PM, jonathon wrote: > LinuxMail wrote: > >>It does not require a lawyer to decipher the meaning it is > plainly clear to anyone who reads it. > > Neither the GNU GPL 2.0,nor GNU LGPL 2.1 are legally > precise. With GNU GPL 3.0 and GNU LGPL 3.0, the meaning is > more legally precise. In both instances, the apparent > "plain meaning" is not necessarily what the legal meaning is. > > I'll grant that neither the GNU GPL nor LGPL obfuscate the > terms and conditions, the way certain other organizations do. > > NoOp wrote: > >> have a few questions, the first being where on earth did you get this? > > I put it together to provide a one stop answer to questions > about licensing and related issues. If people either read > list archives, or the OOo FAQ on the wiki, they wouldn't > keep asking the question. > >> 2. Deployment: Are you suggesting that anyone that wishes to use OOo have >> their attorney go thru the process you've described? > > If you are a business entity, then you _need_ to have your > attorney review _every_ licence for every piece of hardware, > and software that your organization uses. And to have those > licences handy when they review contracts for both software > support and hardware support. > > a) Have you ever analysed a contract for Support Services > for Microsoft Software? Or had an attorney analyse one for you? > > b) It isn't that the GNU LGPL is in legalese (though 3.0 > comes close), but that other licences can create conditions > in which you can not use OOo, or other FLOSS.
Well I suppose that it would be prudent to do so; many consultants make their money off of encouraging and doing the same. Had a bit of a chuckle over that one... I once was contracted to do exactly what you state. Interestingly I didn't find a single license that would have prohibited OOo or other FLOSS. I admit that I did find two support contracts that lead to one support contract being revised, and the other terminated. So maybe a review of such licenses & contracts isn't such a bad thing afterall :-) > >> 4. Patents: cite. Also, I'd be interested in seeing prior art that is >> more than a millennium old. > > The RSA algorithm is from a text on the QBL that was written > during the Tenth Century. Amazon's "One Click Patent" is an > obvious application from writing that has been dated to > circa 4 000 BCE. IANAL but I think that you probably need to read up on what exactly is considered 'prior art' for patent purposes. For the US it is: 35 U.S.C. 102 & 103. Basically it boils down to this: prior art All previous inventions in the field of an invention for which a patent is being sought. Prior art is used by the Patent and TM Office to decide whether the invention is sufficiently unique and non-intuitive to qualify for patent protection. Refs: http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/EB59C247-C71A-4CE0-8EA8CD69BD27E60D/alpha/P/ What is "prior art"? Prior art is defined by statute (35. U.S.C. 102), but it may generally be thought of as anything that prior workers in the field have made or disclosed in the past. Prior art may include printed publications, conference handouts (and sometimes even presentations within a university), books, newspaper articles - often regardless of where the material was published, where it was published, and in what language it was published. Prior art may also include orally presented material, such as discussions at conferences, disclosures to competitors, certain disclosures to colleagues in a field, and other public statements. Ref: http://www.techtransfer.umich.edu/inventors/patents.html You can find the USTPO info here: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2200_2206.htm http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_103.htm#usc35s103 http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0700_706_02_l_2.htm I would propose that this is drifting way off topic from OOo except for the fact that you are quoting this 'Patent' section in your response boilerplate. And that section appears to me both personal opinion, and part FUD. In addition, the USTPO is not the only one that issues patents... http://www.epo.org/patents.html http://www.jpo.go.jp/ http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/patents/pt_main-e.html etc., etc. I *highly* doubt that *any* patent would be turned down anywhere based on millenium old "prior art" under any definition. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
