On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra<rms@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:52AM +0200, drago01 wrote: >> > The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can >> > infringe that they won't sue *you*[2]. >> > >> > [1] => means you can't do it with GPL >> >> It explicitly grant this right. > > What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so without the right. > > And you have no right! If I told you "you can do whatever you want with this and I won't sue you" or "you have the right to implement this" Where exactly is the difference? I can redistribute the implementation as I wish because nobody will sue me if I do so .. which means that I HAVE the right to do so. > Further down (in the FAQ, outside the promise) you're told you need to get a > RAND or RAND-Z license to have the rights. Source? > You don't need a lawyer to distinguish between > a) having a right > or > b) not being sued if you infringe > So what? "not being sued" is the key here... (does not matter how they phrase it, see above) You try to find holes, without backing it up with any citation so sure you need a lawyer to clarification this. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
