On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:24:37 -0500 Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > They don't have to buy patents outright or even exclusively. > They can license their use of the technology under whatever > terms seem agreeable. Nor is there any such requirement for GPL use, you only have to secure a license which allows it to be used as desired. > Things mixed with GPL components have no choice about terms. > Microsoft can agree on any terms that they expect to be > appropriate for their products. Will you continue to > pretend that those situations are equivalent? The _owner_ of the GPL work can agree on any terms they expect to be appropriate. Licensee's of Microsoft or GPL software must abide by the license they've agreed to. Those situations are equivalent. You want to pretend that the requirements of the GPL license are somehow more evil than the requirements of a Microsoft license. It's such an obviously flawed and subjective opinion that it barely requires comment, except it is so oft repeated. > You made the claim that anybody could go buy a patent > and release it under the GPL. Are you anybody? Show > me how it works or stop pretending that it is a real > possibility. If you must rely on such weasel wording to support your arguments you might want to rethink things. I have the monetary means which would likely allow me to buy a patent or three. So far there is nothing I want to do with GPL software that has required it. Sean -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
