OK I’ll bite: which case are you referring to? I’m not seeing anything from Linaro on PACER.
From: License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org> On Behalf Of Simon Phipps Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 1:24 PM To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Does the LinShare "attribution" notice violate OSD? On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 9:21 PM Stefano Zacchiroli <z...@opensource.org <mailto:z...@opensource.org> > wrote: On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 11:41:06AM -0700, McCoy Smith wrote: > Seems like it might violate the definition of appropriate legal notice in > GPLv3. ... hence, one should be able to just remove these de facto "further restrictions", as per: > All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further > restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as > you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that > it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further > restriction, you may remove that term. Right? A recent court case in the US suggests that if Linaro owns all the copyrights it would be unwise to rely on that without further precedent or reliable defence. Simon (in a personal capacity)
_______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
