Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
Scripsit Brian T. Sniffen
> Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> writes:
> > Yes, but a patent could not be part of such a portfolio if if were
> > licensed freely to the general public.
> But it could be part of such a portfolio if it were licensed for use
> in otherwise-free software only,
OK, granted.
--
Henning Makholm "Nemo enim fere saltat sobrius, nisi forte insanit."
Reply to:
- References:
- Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
- From: "Brian M. Carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx>
- Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
- From: Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com>
- Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
- From: Adam Warner <lists@consulting.net.nz>
- Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
- From: Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org>
- Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
- From: Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>
- Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
- From: Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org>
- Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
- From: Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>
- Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
- From: bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen)
- Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
- From: Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>
- Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
- From: bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen)