> According to Raul Miller: > > > > > > [0] There is no distinction between bogus claims and > > > > > > reasonable claims. > > > > > > [2] There is no guarantee that a court will ever be involved > > > > > > or that it will make a judgment. > > > > > > [3] There is no guarantee that Apple will ever lift the > > > > > > suspension. > > > > Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > First, IANAL. Second, it's not a copyright question, it's a patent > > > 'contributory infringement' question. Third, IANAL. Thank you. > > > > In that case, Apple should simply state that they make no claims > > that this license grants relief from patent claims by other agencies.
Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do you have a lawyer's professional opinion on that approach? In a sense -- I'm modeling my recommendation on the architecture of the GPL, which was prepared by a professional lawyer. And, frankly, if the GPL isn't a viable example of a free software license then there are no viable examples of a free software license, and we might as well not pursue this discussion. -- Raul
