On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Havoc Pennington wrote: > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Allin Cottrell <cottr...@wfu.edu> wrote: > > IANAL, but... Hypothesis: Monster Corp distributes D-BUS under > > AFL, while believing that DB in fact violates patents held by > > Monster Corp. �MC then sues users of DB. �MC can no longer > > distribute DB under AFL, but they don't care! �They have succeeded > > in causing trouble. �But as Havoc says, if Monster Corp had > > distributed DB under *GPL they would have effectively made a > > patent grant and given up the right to sue, making this scenario > > impossible. > > Yes, you're right that the AFL imposes fewer restrictions than > GPL, just as any other MIT/X11 type of license imposes less > restrictions than GPL...
> You aren't saying anything here that doesn't also apply to > libX11. OK, that's a fair point. -- Allin Cottrell Department of Economics Wake Forest University
_______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list