Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th Oct 2010 14:55 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 444351
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.
RE[2]: OIN's Linux definition is a fundamental problem
by FlorianMueller on Thu 7th Oct 2010 18:21
in reply to "RE: OIN's Linux definition is a fundamental problem"
RE[3]: OIN's Linux definition is a fundamental problem
by FlorianMueller on Thu 7th Oct 2010 19:02
in reply to "RE[2]: OIN's Linux definition is a fundamental problem"
Just to clarify this, one thing is that the definition on the website currently makes a certain statement. But it's another thing that in the actual license agreement, the definition is subject to change at any time:
http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/pat_license_agreement.php
“Linux System” shall, at any time, have the meaning set forth, at that time, on www.openinventionnetwork.com.
So there isn't really any reliability in terms of future versions since they reserve the right to change the definition whenever they want, whichever way they want.




Member since:
2006-01-11
The article Florian links to has a significant error, I think. The OIN definition of a Linux system includes a list of packages, and also says that it applies to "any predecessor or successor release". So it would appear that an OIN member can never sue GCC for patent violation, for example, since GCC is defined as a Linux system component (and yes, I can hear RMS gnashing his teeth over that).
Edited 2010-10-07 16:35 UTC