On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 01:49 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Luis Villa wrote: > > > > > I'd strongly suggest having more detail than that in anything you > > propose to legal. > > > > * who will choose what that points at? > > * where (geography, hardware) will they be hosted, and by who? > > * will it be source-available-but-patent-encumbered only? or will it > > include no-source options? or some other line? > > * what type of education do you plan to do? might it admit (or not) > > that there is a belief or public allegation that patents are > > infringed? if it does not, how is the whole exercise publicly > > justified? > > Third party repository containing only Free but patent encumbered > software hosted outside of US in a region not affected by software > patents and in resources provided external to Red Hat. That definition fails. And it fails completely. If it is a Third party repository, you cannot control what other software is put in it. If you _can_ control what else gets put into it, then it's not really a Third party repo. josh _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
