Hi,
On Tue, Dec 31, 2002 at 04:09:32PM +0100, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> With respect to a Recommendation developed under this policy, a W3C
> Royalty-Free license shall mean a non-assignable, non-sublicensable
> license to make, have made, use, sell, have sold, offer to sell,
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2002.12.31 13:44 Bruce Perens wrote:
There's a long discussion below. I'm asking you to do something once
you
read that discussion: Please write to
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and tell them something like this (please elaborate - everyone
discounts
rubber-
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 06:44:08PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> The code that makes use of the patented principle must be under the
> MIT license, which allows a scope-limited patent license.
You are asking us to support a proposal that goes against point 6 of
the Debian Free Software Guideli
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 06:44:08PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
[SNIP]
> Please write to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and tell them
> something like this (please elaborate - everyone discounts
> rubber-stamp comments):
>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Approve of draft policy - disapprov
Bruce,
Numerous people have posted to the slashdot discussion comments that complain
that the W3C comment submission software is rejecting their comments because
clicking the validation link in the confirmation email doesn't work. It
appears to be a bug in the W3C's mail server software. You
Bruce,
I understand your argument, but I have also read the FSF's argument at:
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/w3c-patent.html
If, as you say, the holders of patents took their toys to play elsewhere rather
than participating in the W3C standards process, this might actually have some
benefit.
6 matches
Mail list logo
