On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:50:12 -0400 Joe Smith wrote: [...] > I think most courts do not rule on uncontested fact. This clause is > probably intended to > prevent EvilCorp(TM) from claiming that the work falls into that > class. The other party > is unlikely to contest that, claiming the work does fall into that > class, as that could > only hurt said other party. I'm not sure I follow your reasoning, sorry. Anyway, as I stated, what concerns me is that declaring a fact as true in a license does not make it magically true. It could instead prevent the adoption of the license for some works, or, at any rate, become problematic in some scenarios... [...] > I think this stems from source code not requireing a patent license. > So if the source code is available, the patent can be bypassed by > having the consumer > download and compile the code themselves. Of course all of this can > only protrect the downstream > consumer if the compiled binaries are not being passed around. Hence, with this kind of "protection from patents" we lose the permission to distribute binaries! It does not look as a good enough protection, then... -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/etch_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpV2oU_MwZ31.pgp
Description: PGP signature