Jonathan P Tomer writes: > hm, does the gpl require the distributor of a derived work to give > licence to all applicable patents they own?
No. > i think that's a nice feature. I agree. > the legal file requirement is potentially problematic (since it forces a > particular name) I Think it is ok (dumb, but ok). It just requires a particular name for one file, not the package. > this licence looks an awful lot like another one we looked at a while > ago, which one was it and what did we decide about that one? I don't know. Many of these heavily lawyered licenses have a superficial similarity. -- John Hasler This posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
