On Sat, Sep 18, 2004 at 07:20:25PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > MJ Ray wrote: > > On 2004-09-15 09:31:43 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 09:06:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > >> > >>> The first is the case where you were licensed no patents to use the > >>> software. [...] > >> > >> (This much doesn't seem too convincing.) > > > > Oh well, it seems a forseeable reasonably likely situation to me. > > I agree. I believe this license is designed to allow Free Software > developers to defend themselves against patents without holding any > themselves; therefore, this seems like a very likely scenario.
This response doesn't seem to make much sense, in the context of the entire reply, which was a specific example of a possible abuse of this clause. (I think MJ got a little overzealous with his ellipses.) -- Glenn Maynard
