[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: AROS License DFSG ok?

On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 02:08:29PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> There is a somewhat recursive, but self-consistent, way to deal with
> this.  We don't require explicit patent licenses when it appears the
> patents aren't being enforced.  Presence of these clauses is excellent
> evidence that the patents are being enforced -- or at least no longer
> *not* being enforced.

Most of the time it's just evidence that some idiot manager has
selected the longest license they could find, which happened to be
written by a lawyer with an overactive imagination. There probably
*aren't* any relevant patents in most cases.

If the copyright holder admits to actually having patents, *then* we
might have a problem. Casewise basis for this, as always.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: