Re: Open Source Definition : can it be made explicit about non-copyright issues?

2004-01-16 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Russell McOrmond wrote: [...] > deal with some of the worst cases we are currently dealing with. Care to provide some SPECIFIC example(s) involving IBM? You've mentioned before IETF and OASIS. Well, IETF with its RAND patent licensing policy aside for a moment (http://tinyurl.com/yshn3 and see a

Re: Open Source Definition : can it be made explicit about non-copyright issues?

2004-01-15 Thread Russell McOrmond
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Russell McOrmond wrote: > [...] > > Note: There are all these Halloween documents discussing the OSI > > battle-of-words with Microsoft, but I wonder why there is no similar > > discussion with IBM? > > Well, see > > http://www.opensource.org/li

Re: Open Source Definition : can it be made explicit about non-copyright issues?

2004-01-14 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Russell McOrmond wrote: [...] > Note: There are all these Halloween documents discussing the OSI > battle-of-words with Microsoft, but I wonder why there is no similar > discussion with IBM? Well, see http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ibmpl.php and, p