Andrew Suffield wrote: > I don't see any obvious sticking points, however: > - This is, inevitably, incompatible with the GPL - and probably > some other licenses too.
Good point. > - If a work under this license has relevant patents covering it, > we'll have to consider it on a case by case basis. Some of those > patent clauses are hairy. If there are no relevant patents, they > don't apply and therefore aren't a concern. > So background research is needed for anything released under it. I see that also from Adam's analysis. However, to be in Debian, the license has to be DFSG compatible. Would you declare the license to be incompatible? If so, then I suppose derived works could be distributed in non-free assuming they don't infringe on any patents. Thanks for your help with this! Kevin
pgpvFFPlGATfM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
