Re: GNOME following a non-free standard

[Luis Villa <luis villa gmail com>]

On 5/23/05, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller <uraeus gnome org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 12:17 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> > Most non-free standards would specifically exclude implementation in
> > licenses we would consider acceptable, no?
> Some yes, but in regards to my question lets say they do not impose such
> limitations. The only limitation is that we get a paper copy of the
> specification and is not allowed to copy or redistribute it.

Hrm. I don't think we'd have any objection in principle to that (I
mean, we accept all kinds of reverse-engineered stuff, which is not
that different, right?), but we'd have to understand their motives
clearly- as you're aware from other discussions :) motivations count.
And there would of course be some clean-room concerns- is whoever gets
to see the paper tainted? can they work on other code without being
sued?

Luis
_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers