Re: [Debate] "Offene Standards": Koalition beharrt auf Umdefinition

[PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>]

> > Ich weiß nicht, wie weit die Forderungen gehen. Wäre das folgende
> > ausreichend?
> >
> > | In addition, for the Eifel submission, if said submission is included
> > | in an IETF standard and Ericsson has patents that are essential to the
> > | implementation of such included submission in said standard, Ericsson
> > | is prepared to grant - on the basis of reciprocity -a paid up,
> > | nonexclusive, royalty free license on such patents for the purpose of
> > | implementing said standard, if and only if practiced under any
> > | software distributed under the present terms of the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC
> > | LICENSE (http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html) or practiced under any
> > | operating system software in which all major components of the
> > | operating system - including the kernel, device drivers and libraries
> > | necessary to run a program - are distributed under the terms of a
> > | license that conforms to the present OPEN SOURCE DEFINITION
> > | (http://www.opensource.org/osd.html).
> 
> Nein. BSD kann damit nichts anfangen.

Ja?

BSD entspricht doch der Opensource-Definition, von der hier die Rede ist.

Ich würde mir eher Sorgen machen, dass auch mit dieser Art von großzügiger
RAND-Lizenzierung Autoren von Individualsoftware und Shareware schwer leben
können.

-- 
Hartmut Pilch				http://a2e.de/phm
_______________________________________________
Debate mailing list
Debate@lists.fitug.de
http://lists.fitug.de:8080/mailman/listinfo/debate