Re: GLib plans for the next cycle

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Havoc Pennington wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Allin Cottrell <cottrell 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

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]