On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 21:22 -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 18:25 -0500, Lee Revell wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 14:43 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote: > > > Anyone intersted in further study could easily discover the U.S. > > > patent numbers that were originally licensed to NemeSys. (Not Tascam!) > > > If someone cannot do that for themselves then they probably could > > > figure out someone who does know the numbers and ask so they could > > > read the patents for themselves. > > > > > > Please note that while I am greatly disappointed that all of this has > > > happened I still thinkLS is a really great piece of work and I, for > > > one, still have great respect for all the folks that have done this > > > work. > > > > If the issue really is a patent dispute involving a patent that is 1) a > > AFAIK, it has nothing whatsoever to do with a patent issue. That > question does exist for LS, but I do not believe (and I am not certain > here) that it is related to the reason for the license change in CVS. In CVS a while back, I suppose. AFAIK all 0.3.x (x >= 1) tarballs have the same non-GPL license. -- Fernando
