[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Are Microsoft’s patent lawyers really this dumb?

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Are Microsoft’s patent lawyers really this dumb?
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:03:16 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <> writes:

> "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>>    "Alfred M. Szmidt" <> writes:
>>    >    Not really.  You can use it to license commercial software, but
>>    >    since the demand is that it is "to be licensed as a whole at no
>>    >    charge", while you can charge for a copy of the _software_, the
>>    >    license itself is not a commercial item.
>>    >
>>    > Sure it is, you can charge several millions for a copy of the license.
>>    > All that is required is that you do not modify it.
>>    You can't charge anything for the license accompanying sublicensed
>>    GPLed software, obviously.  That's what the "no charge" is about.
> Sublicensed GPLed software? Dak, dak, dak, 
>                        "Sublicensing is not allowed"


    "Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10 makes it unnecessary."


10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.



  4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License.  Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]