On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Peter TB Brett pe...@peter-b.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 09:53:55 +0800, Steven Michalske smichal...@gmail.com
wrote:
To make this point clear to get companies like IBM to support GPL V3
they had to put in clauses that excepted them from the IP rules.
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 09:53:55 +0800, Steven Michalske smichal...@gmail.com
wrote:
To make this point clear to get companies like IBM to support GPL V3
they had to put in clauses that excepted them from the IP rules.
[citation needed]. This is pure FUD.
Also see this clause
John Griessen wrote:
al davis wrote:
On Friday 13 August 2010, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
can you give an example, please?
Under GPL-3 you can't make a contribution that applies one of your
own patents, then sue the users of the package for patent infringement.
Sounds OK for openness so
To make this point clear to get companies like IBM to support GPL V3
they had to put in clauses that excepted them from the IP rules.
Also see this clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Compatibility_and_multi-licensing
you cant link a GPL v3 library into non GPL v3
4 matches
Mail list logo