MS-CP oddity
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Sander_Marechal Jul 07, 2009 12:39 PM EDT |
This part still raises my hairs:Quoting:Q: What if I don’t implement the entire specification? Will I still get the protections under the CP? I'm no lawyer so I refrain from commenting until a lawyer reviews that, but I wonder how that would work with GPLv3 section 11. |
| dinotrac Jul 07, 2009 3:00 PM EDT |
I don't see how it can conform to GPLV3, as the failure to cover partial implementations imposes a significant restriction on the rights of recipients to modify the code. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 07, 2009 3:32 PM EDT |
Yes, but GPLv3 section 11 also mentions several things that apply only to the patent holder or controller. A 3rd party use creating GPLv3 code does not control the patent in this case. I assume that someone with FSF is looking at it as we're speaking and that comments and analysis will shortly follow. I'll wait for readable version of all that legalese before I make up my mind. |
| azerthoth Jul 07, 2009 8:20 PM EDT |
Why are we looking for GPL compatibility on a license that isnt even on the OSI's license list? p.s. GPL compatibility does not an open source license make, or rather lack of said compatibility does not mean that a license isnt an open source license. In this case however, it's a completely moot point. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 08, 2009 4:39 AM EDT |
Quoting:Why are we looking for GPL compatibility on a license that isnt even on the OSI's license list? Because the MS-CP isn't a source code license so it will never show up on the OSI list. IMB's patent promise isn't on OSI either. Neither is the OIN promise. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!