Hi people, I'm rehashing an old subject mostly because I'd like to save Branden trouble in the near future (how kind of me... nah).
Back in June 2000, James Treacy asked about the SGI Free Software License B. Go look at the archives if you are interested in the whole discussion. One of the points in that license is that SGI does not grant permission to implement patented methods or designs in hardware. In other words, if the software contains an implementation of a patented device, you are free to use, copy and modify the software as *software*, but you are not allowed to use it as a starting point for a hardware implementation of the device. The license is worded a little differently, but i think I'm not deviating from the intention. It has happened that certain hardware company has granted permission to use its patents for a software implementation of a feature that's now implemented on a large part of their product line. The permission they granted is software-only. You cannot use the software implementation as a starting point for a hardware one. Moreover, if you are making a hardware device that implements the feature, you have to obtain permission from this company. This particular software is eventually going to become part of XFree86. XFree86 project is not going to have *any* problem with it because the terms and conditions are compatible with their preferred license. My personal opinion is that this is ok. This does not conflict with the DFSG because this is not software we are talking about and until now I haven't read a convincing argument that is does indeed relate to the "fields of endevour" clause (DFSG 6). Starting from a very naïve position, yes, this is saying "you cannot use this for X", but the particular case in question makes it hard to come up with a realistic example. At the time of the original discussion, -legal seemed to agree that this is ok (IOW, noone actually said those terms make the license non-free). To add another twist in the maze, I did upload a package licensed under the Free Software B license. James Troup said to me on IRC that he'd think about the license and ask here in case he had any doubts (this is, to the best of my recollection, what James said, I apologize beforehand if I'm putting words in his mouth). He never asked, but neither got the package installed on the archive. After some period of silence, being the irrational whiner that I am, I just got tired of the whole thing and removed the package from the incoming queue, so I can't say for sure what his position regarding the issue is. So there, let it be archived this time. -- Marcelo | Item 41: Differentiate between inheritance and templates [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Scott Meyers, Effective C++
