Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 29th May 2009 22:32 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Thread beginning with comment 366497
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2008-10-30
Perhaps it's my error, but I interpret this section of the GPL so that it does not need a court decision to trigger this clause. All it needs is
a.) a necessary patent license for implementing let's say an ECMA specification (which according to the articles seems to be necessary)
b.) with terms incompatible to the GPL
c.) and somebody starting to demand adherence to this license selectively "
So you think that if Microsoft says linux infringes on 234 patents of theirs, then there is an alleged patent infringement and the kernel is in violation of the GPL? LOL :-)
What the GPL quote means is that you have to stay compliant with the remainder of the terms in the GPL even if a court order forces you to be non compliant with one of the terms.
As for the rest of your stuff, I'm now convinced that you are a anti FOSS troll working under the pretense of being pro FOSS. Obviously you want programmers to spend their time on patent licenses rather than programming.