I just caught up on the discussion regarding the license. Here is my take so far and remaining questions. So we can come to a conclusion on this, could we people state which sections they agree are ok so we can ignore them and start a seperate thread for each section that needs to be discussed further? Please leave me in any replies as I'm not subscribed to -legal. Section 1. Just sets up some definitions. No problem. Section 2.1. I have philosophical problems with the artificial separation of code into copyrightable and patentable sections, but I don't see any legal difficulties here. Agreed? Section 2.2. Strange. The only reason I can see for this is that if a company decides that the code utilizes an algorithm they have patented, then if SGI can show that they have used the code (thereby agreeing to the license conditions), then they can't sue SGI since the license granted SGI worldwide, royalty free, use of the patent(s). I don't think the DFSG has anything to say on this. Any other opinions? Is this a problem? Section 2.3. I have no idea. Comments? Section 3.1. No problem. Section 3.2. We would be distributing under the same license so can ignore most of this section.
Can ignore 3.3 since using their license. Sections 4-10, no problem. Section 11. IMO, there shouldn't be a problem with indemnity. Basically, I don't see losses SGI could realize from fair competition as being 'damages'. Sections 12-13. Standard stuff. -- James (Jay) Treacy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
