[IronPython] Ironpython 0.7 released!
ryan4096 at bellsouth.net
Tue Mar 29 06:32:57 CEST 2005
Exactly. That's probably one of the reasons they didn't go with an
OSI-approved license. That clause can easily be used to prevent
forking, and to make sure that someone [the patent holder/licensee, MS]
can retain control over the project and its direction.
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 21:49 -0500, J. Merrill wrote:
> At 07:56 PM 3/28/2005, Burning wrote
> >Having a problem with the license because of the name is as silly as having problems with the .NET Framework just because its under the ".NET" umbrella, in my personal opinion. It seems like many people who have issues with the license haven't quite read it yet.
> Why are there any incomprehensible statements about patents in the FAQ for the license?
> I do not see that you have answered the question I asked about the meaning of the phrase "that read on" that appears multiple times in the FAQ for the license. As far as I'm concerned, if I don't understand a phrase used in the official license FAQ, I "have issues" with the license.
> Doesn't item 6. of the license ("That the patent rights, if any, granted in this license only apply to the Software, not to any derivative works you make.") mean that if MS (or Jim personally) has licensed a patent, and has used the patented intellectual property in building IronPython, that I could possibly be sued by the owner of the patent were I to build a "derivative work" based on IronPython?
> What "patent rights, if any" are "granted in [the] license"? Wouldn't it be better if the license were more explicit about what those are?
> Do you think that the failure to list any such patent licenses that might apply guarantees that there aren't any? After all, MS could at any time choose to license anything, because they have (in effect) infinite money.
> J. Merrill / Analytical Software Corp
> users-ironpython.com mailing list
> users-ironpython.com at lists.ironpython.com
More information about the Ironpython-users