Re: "Offene Standards": Koalition beharrt auf Umdefinition
PILCH Hartmut <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.fitug.debate |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> > Ich weiß nicht, wie weit die Forderungen gehen. Wäre das folgende > > ausreichend? > > > > | In addition, for the Eifel submission, if said submission is included > > | in an IETF standard and Ericsson has patents that are essential to the > > | implementation of such included submission in said standard, Ericsson > > | is prepared to grant - on the basis of reciprocity -a paid up, > > | nonexclusive, royalty free license on such patents for the purpose of > > | implementing said standard, if and only if practiced under any > > | software distributed under the present terms of the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC > > | LICENSE (http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html) or practiced under any > > | operating system software in which all major components of the > > | operating system - including the kernel, device drivers and libraries > > | necessary to run a program - are distributed under the terms of a > > | license that conforms to the present OPEN SOURCE DEFINITION > > | (http://www.opensource.org/osd.html). > > Nein. BSD kann damit nichts anfangen. Ja? BSD entspricht doch der Opensource-Definition, von der hier die Rede ist. Ich würde mir eher Sorgen machen, dass auch mit dieser Art von großzügiger RAND-Lizenzierung Autoren von Individualsoftware und Shareware schwer leben können. -- Hartmut Pilch http://a2e.de/phm _______________________________________________ Debate mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fitug.de:8080/mailman/listinfo/debate